Pedestrian Crossings on Studewood St.

[bookey23]

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but could anyone help me figure out who I need to talk to regarding the poor or total lack of pedestrian crossings on Studewood? It never used to bother me too much, until I had a baby. Now I try to cross a busy 3-lane street with my stroller and it feels like cars speed up when they see me. I know there are a few pedestrian islands, but they are not close to the intersections where I live. I would love to speak with someone regarding adding "Yield to Pedestrian" signs on my closest crosswalk and add some additional paint and yield signs to crosswalks up and down the road.

[hindesky]

I would contact your council member in either District C or H depending on where you live.

[s3mh]

This has been a longstanding issue that many in Woodland Heights, Norhill and Heights proper have been trying to get the City to help with.  The best they were able to get were pedestrian islands at a few spots along Studewood.  The City pretty much takes the position that they will not put in a protected pedestrian crossing like the one on Yale unless there is a pedestrian fatality.  

[springcityparts]

11 hours ago, bookey23 said:

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but could anyone help me figure out who I need to talk to regarding the poor or total lack of pedestrian crossings on Studewood? It never used to bother me too much, until I had a baby. Now I try to cross a busy 3-lane street with my stroller and it feels like cars speed up when they see me. I know there are a few pedestrian islands, but they are not close to the intersections where I live. I would love to speak with someone regarding adding "Yield to Pedestrian" signs on my closest crosswalk and add some additional paint and yield signs to crosswalks up and down the road.

Hi, I would recommend emailing council members Abbie Kamin’s (C) and Karla Cisneros’s (H) office with your experience/difficulty crossing. Studewood is right at the intersection of their districts. 
 

DistrictH@houstontx.gov
DistrictC@houstontx.gov

Make sure you request a short meeting or phone call and tell them you try to walk the streets with a baby. 

 

out of curiosity, is it happening around 6 1/2 st?
 

Edited October 7, 2022 by emmanume

[wilcal]

16 hours ago, s3mh said:

This has been a longstanding issue that many in Woodland Heights, Norhill and Heights proper have been trying to get the City to help with.  The best they were able to get were pedestrian islands at a few spots along Studewood.  The City pretty much takes the position that they will not put in a protected pedestrian crossing like the one on Yale unless there is a pedestrian fatality.  

I'm not an expert on this, but I believe that there is grant funding that becomes available at some point when there is a serious injury/fatality.

[s3mh]

2 hours ago, wilcal said:

I'm not an expert on this, but I believe that there is grant funding that becomes available at some point when there is a serious injury/fatality.

Could be.  With respect to the Nicholson crossing, the story from the city was that it would be too close to the Shep intersection for state road design standards.  But if there was a fatality, that would allow the city to bypass those requirements.  That is how we got the pedestrian crossing on Shep at 10th.  A woman got hit and killed trying to help someone in a wheel chair cross Shep.  

[Ross]

1 hour ago, s3mh said:

Could be.  With respect to the Nicholson crossing, the story from the city was that it would be too close to the Shep intersection for state road design standards.  But if there was a fatality, that would allow the city to bypass those requirements.  That is how we got the pedestrian crossing on Shep at 10th.  A woman got hit and killed trying to help someone in a wheel chair cross Shep.  

The guy in the wheelchair died as well. Really bad incident

I looked up the driver in that incident. 3 years later, and she is still waiting to be tried, and is in jail after her bond was forfeited for failure to appear and she was finally arrested again. 

[BigRed]

It is truly depressing to see that loss of life is a needed driving force in order to make for safer streets and neighborhoods. And wildly maddening that the driver still has not faced any justice.

[bedmondson]

What I don't get is how much a Houston centric idea it is that you don't stop at cross walks for people. Growing up in Houston you learn to just ignore cross walks. Now having lived and visited many other cities, Houston seems unique in their categorical disregard of cross walk rules. Even in College Station, 1 hour away, drivers would slam on their brakes if you walked a bit to close to one. There are already the "Yield to Pedestrians" signs on 11th at the bikepath and you can see every day crowds of people, some with strollers, waiting as a freeway of cars pretend like they don't see them.  The amount of crazy that comes out of the wood work to see anyone try to alleviate any of this (studewood pedestrian islands) is depressing.

[bookey23]

On 10/7/2022 at 12:30 AM, emmanume said:

out of curiosity, is it happening around 6 1/2 st?

Within a few blocks of there, yes.

[s3mh]

20 hours ago, bedmondson said:

What I don't get is how much a Houston centric idea it is that you don't stop at cross walks for people. Growing up in Houston you learn to just ignore cross walks. Now having lived and visited many other cities, Houston seems unique in their categorical disregard of cross walk rules. Even in College Station, 1 hour away, drivers would slam on their brakes if you walked a bit to close to one. There are already the "Yield to Pedestrians" signs on 11th at the bikepath and you can see every day crowds of people, some with strollers, waiting as a freeway of cars pretend like they don't see them.  The amount of crazy that comes out of the wood work to see anyone try to alleviate any of this (studewood pedestrian islands) is depressing.

Unfortunately, under Texas law, you do not have to stop at a crosswalk if there are people waiting to cross.  A lot of other states have laws requiring motorists to stop at a crosswalk if someone is just waiting to cross.  But in Texas, you only have to stop if someone has started to cross the street.  For pedestrians, that means you either wait until the street is clear and you can make it all the way across before any vehicles approach or you have to play a game of chicken and hope that vehicles coming down the street will stop if you start crossing.  The hate for pedestrians and cyclists is so bad in Texas that Alexandra Mealer is running attack ads against Lina Hidalgo complaining that she is funding hike and bike trails instead of police.  So, it will take a lot of noise from the community to get a change to this.  

[Houston19514]

7 hours ago, s3mh said:

Unfortunately, under Texas law, you do not have to stop at a crosswalk if there are people waiting to cross.  A lot of other states have laws requiring motorists to stop at a crosswalk if someone is just waiting to cross.  But in Texas, you only have to stop if someone has started to cross the street.  For pedestrians, that means you either wait until the street is clear and you can make it all the way across before any vehicles approach or you have to play a game of chicken and hope that vehicles coming down the street will stop if you start crossing.  

What states are those?  I cannot find one.  FWIW, here is the Texas law and most states' laws are essentially identical to this (Again, I find none that require motor vehicles to stop for someone standing on the curb waiting to cross):

"When traffic signal is not in place, vehicles must yield to pedestrian in crosswalk on vehicle’s half of road or close to it. Pedestrians must not step off curb and into path of vehicle when vehicle does not have time to stop."

https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/PEDESTRIAN-AND-CROSSWALKS-50-STATE-CHART.pdf

Edited October 11, 2022 by Houston19514

[bedmondson]

19 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

What states are those?  I cannot find one.  FWIW, here is the Texas law and most states' laws are essentially identical to this (Again, I find none that require motor vehicles to stop for someone standing on the curb waiting to cross):

"When traffic signal is not in place, vehicles must yield to pedestrian in crosswalk on vehicle’s half of road or close to it. Pedestrians must not step off curb and into path of vehicle when vehicle does not have time to stop."

https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/PEDESTRIAN-AND-CROSSWALKS-50-STATE-CHART.pdf

That's interesting, didn't know that.  So the meaning of the "Yield to Pedestrians" signs they put up at cross walks is meant only for pedestrians already in the street itself and not those standing at a cross walk? They seem to give a false impression, or maybe that is just me.

[s3mh]

21 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

What states are those?  I cannot find one.  FWIW, here is the Texas law and most states' laws are essentially identical to this (Again, I find none that require motor vehicles to stop for someone standing on the curb waiting to cross):

"When traffic signal is not in place, vehicles must yield to pedestrian in crosswalk on vehicle’s half of road or close to it. Pedestrians must not step off curb and into path of vehicle when vehicle does not have time to stop."

https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/PEDESTRIAN-AND-CROSSWALKS-50-STATE-CHART.pdf

It is how the statutes are put into practice.  I have seen signs in CO, VT, MA, WA at crosswalks stating that drivers must stop to allow waiting pedestrians to cross.    

[Houston19514]

19 hours ago, s3mh said:

It is how the statutes are put into practice.  I have seen signs in CO, VT, MA, WA at crosswalks stating that drivers must stop to allow waiting pedestrians to cross.    

I spend a lot of time in Colorado in particular and I've seen those signs.  You are misquoting them, just as you misstated the existence of such laws.  The signs say:

"State Law    Yield to pedestrians within crosswalk."

Edited October 13, 2022 by Houston19514

[chempku]

On 10/11/2022 at 9:40 AM, s3mh said:

The hate for pedestrians and cyclists is so bad in Texas that Alexandra Mealer is running attack ads against Lina Hidalgo complaining that she is funding hike and bike trails instead of police.  So, it will take a lot of noise from the community to get a change to this.  

If funding the police means more motor vehicle violations not yield to pedestrians will be caught, then why not do it? The county funding hike and bike trails does not mean the money will go where it need to: the county consistently underinvest in high density neighborhoods where hike and bike trails have more bang for their bucks nevertheless, despite more property taxes were collected in those neighborhoods. 

[s3mh]

53 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

I spend a lot of time in Colorado in particular and I've seen those signs.  You are misquoting them, just as you misstated the existence of such laws.  The signs say:

"State Law    Yield to pedestrians within crosswalk."

[s3mh]

29 minutes ago, chempku said:

If funding the police means more motor vehicle violations not yield to pedestrians will be caught, then why not do it? The county funding hike and bike trails does not mean the money will go where it need to: the county consistently underinvest in high density neighborhoods where hike and bike trails have more bang for their bucks nevertheless, despite more property taxes were collected in those neighborhoods. 

How cute.  You actually think that police in Houston issue citations for failing to yield to pedestrians and having more police would help pedestrian access.  It has been documented that the police are not even enforcing the bike ordinance.  And this is just a stupid line of argument when a protected crossing is clearly what we need but the idiots Austin and our city engineering department are stuck with the idea that a protected pedestrian crossing can't go in unless someone has been killed trying to cross the street.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Houston-safe-passing-bicyclists-ordinance-law-17451596.php

[s3mh]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

I spend a lot of time in Colorado in particular and I've seen those signs.  You are misquoting them, just as you misstated the existence of such laws.  The signs say:

"State Law    Yield to pedestrians within crosswalk."

[trymahjong]

Maybe it’s a coincidence , all this discussion on crosswalks, but a meeting was held at Wharton Elementary last night concerning the crosswalk at Gray and Montrose. I think it was hosted by parents at Wharton ( plus concerned citizens) over the lack of safety for children at Gray and Montrose and another crosswalk at Stanford and Gray—— the crosswalk guard reported that he regularly gets “ near misses” from cars disregard of that crosswalk. The meeting had a few members of City Council, Montrose TIRZ, Neartown and one HISD board member- maybe 50 attending all together.

 

I think the goal was raising awareness of dangers of crosswalk at Gray and Montrose, plus asking for signage on Montrose that designate a school zone plus a raised ( brick I think) crosswalk replace the current painted crosswalk.

[chempku]

12 hours ago, s3mh said:

How cute.  You actually think that police in Houston issue citations for failing to yield to pedestrians and having more police would help pedestrian access.  It has been documented that the police are not even enforcing the bike ordinance.  And this is just a stupid line of argument when a protected crossing is clearly what we need but the idiots Austin and our city engineering department are stuck with the idea that a protected pedestrian crossing can't go in unless someone has been killed trying to cross the street.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Houston-safe-passing-bicyclists-ordinance-law-17451596.php

I agree that more funding for police is not equal to more police enforcement on motor vehicle violations against pedestrians. But I lived in East Asian cities which build the pedestrian/cyclist friendly infrastructures that our local advocates always touted about (which will never be built in cities like Houston), but transportation law enforcement is still a must to make sure the vulnerable are protected. It's so naive that you believe spending on infrastructure would solve the problem (which is also something the county seldom do for this neighborhood). 

The police has been consistently issuing citations for unsafe behaviors for pedestrians like speeding, not stopping at school buses, etc. They just need to be incentivized to do more. 

 

[Houston19514]

On 10/13/2022 at 10:52 AM, s3mh said:

Neither of the signs you‘ve shown us say what you have reported to have seen, to-wit:  signs in CO, VT, MA, WA at crosswalks stating that drivers must stop to allow waiting pedestrians to cross.

[s3mh]

On 10/16/2022 at 9:21 AM, Houston19514 said:

Neither of the signs you‘ve shown us say what you have reported to have seen, to-wit:  signs in CO, VT, MA, WA at crosswalks stating that drivers must stop to allow waiting pedestrians to cross.

What strange world do you live in where a sign posted in the street saying "stop" for "pedestrians" would be interpreted to allow a motorist to drive past the crosswalk when pedestrians are waiting to cross?  Stop means stop.  Pedestrians are people who are on foot not exclusively defined as people who are walking in a crosswalk, but not people waiting to use a crosswalk.  I have been to both locations I posted and can verify that police will write you a ticket if you fail to stop when pedestrians are waiting to cross.    

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, s3mh said:

What strange world do you live in where a sign posted in the street saying "stop" for "pedestrians" would be interpreted to allow a motorist to drive past the crosswalk when pedestrians are waiting to cross?  Stop means stop.  Pedestrians are people who are on foot not exclusively defined as people who are walking in a crosswalk, but not people waiting to use a crosswalk.  I have been to both locations I posted and can verify that police will write you a ticket if you fail to stop when pedestrians are waiting to cross.    

I live in the real world, where the law means what it says and not something else.  I call BS on your having seen motorists get ticketed for failing to stop for people waiting to cross in either Washington or Colorado, because (1) that's not the law in either place and police don't tend to write tickets for activities that do not violate the law and (2) any such ticket would get thrown out because, again, that's not the law in either place.  The law in Washington and Colorado (the locations of your two photos) is functionally identical to the law in Texas.

Washington:  "(1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "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. (2) No pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop."

Colorado:  "When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger."

Texas:  "(a) The operator of a vehicle shall stop and 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 stop and yield.

Edited October 17, 2022 by Houston19514

[s3mh]

3 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

I live in the real world, where the law means what it says and not something else.  I call BS on your having seen motorists get ticketed for failing to stop for people waiting to cross in either Washington or Colorado, because (1) that's not the law in either place and police don't tend to write tickets for activities that do not violate the law and (2) any such ticket would get thrown out because, again, that's not the law in either place.  The law in Washington and Colorado (the locations of your two photos) is functionally identical to the law in Texas.

Washington:  "(1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "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. (2) No pedestrian, bicycle, or personal delivery device shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop."

Colorado:  "When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger."

Texas:  "(a) The operator of a vehicle shall stop and 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 stop and yield.

Your interpretation of the law would basically mean that no one could ever cross a busy street in a pedestrian friendly shopping area like the two examples I gave.  With a steady stream of vehicle, the pedestrian in your interpretation of the law cannot enter the crosswalk as long as another vehicle is approaching and the motorist doesn't have to yield until the pedestrian has taken a step in front of their vehicle.  That kind of stupidity may rule in Texas where the motor vehicle is king but it is definitely not the rule in many other states where people actually value pedestrian access.

[editor]

Not that I think either of the people arguing here will care what I think, but it's been my observation that there are cities and states that make a distinction between pedestrians in a crosswalk, and those about to enter one.

My most recent experience is Nevada, where it's common to see signs similar to this one:

This one is on a curb, but usually they're right in the middle of the street, on the double-yellow line.

In practice, drivers slow down when they see the sign and someone on the sidewalk, but they do not stop.  However, as soon as someone sets a foot off the curb, traffic in both directions immediately comes to a halt.

As someone who would walk to Starbucks daily, rather than drive the three blocks like my neighbors did, I was frequently in that position, and started waiting for traffic to thin a bit before I stepped off the curb, just because I was inconveniencing so many people.

[bedmondson]

Curious what the law says for pedestrian's not in a cross walk? The law as provided above simply says you can't run over pedestrians in a cross walk if they gave you reasonable amount to stop. I would have thought it would be been written that way about pedestrians anywhere. Is it legal for a pedestrian to ever be in a road? Is there another part of the law that says drivers shouldn't run over people in the street if they can avoid it, cross walk or not? 

[Houston19514]

21 hours ago, s3mh said:

Your interpretation of the law would basically mean that no one could ever cross a busy street in a pedestrian friendly shopping area like the two examples I gave.  With a steady stream of vehicle, the pedestrian in your interpretation of the law cannot enter the crosswalk as long as another vehicle is approaching and the motorist doesn't have to yield until the pedestrian has taken a step in front of their vehicle.  That kind of stupidity may rule in Texas where the motor vehicle is king but it is definitely not the rule in many other states where people actually value pedestrian access.

One can typically step off a curb without stepping directly in front of a vehicle.  I didn't really do much "interpreting" of the law; just showed you what the laws is. You gave us false information.  Just own it and move on.

1 hour ago, bedmondson said:

Curious what the law says for pedestrian's not in a cross walk? The law as provided above simply says you can't run over pedestrians in a cross walk if they gave you reasonable amount to stop. I would have thought it would be been written that way about pedestrians anywhere. Is it legal for a pedestrian to ever be in a road? Is there another part of the law that says drivers shouldn't run over people in the street if they can avoid it, cross walk or not? 

Well, it gets a little more into the weeds.  No one ever has the right to run over a pedestrian, but if the pedestrian crosses not in a crosswalk, you have to start looking at contributory negligence, etc.  Much more complicated and difficult.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Houston19514

[wilcal]

Pedestrians have the right-of-way at all marked and unmarked crosswalks. If there is a signaling device (green man/flashing hand) then pedestrians must follow those. Only vehicles on your side of the street have to 

Pedestrians are allowed to cross streets not an an intersection/crosswalk, but they do not have the right-of-way and must yield to vehicles. (See Sec. 552.005)

As the law mentions, you must give vehicles enough time to slow down to facilitate your safe crossing. 

Yes, pedestrians have to actually attempt to be crossing the road in order for vehicles to have to yield, but they do not need to wait for a vehicle to stop unless it is not possible for the vehicle to stop to allow them to cross. If a pedestrian is just standing on the side of the road, vehicles don't have to stop of course. If someone is attempting to make a crossing then vehicles must yield if they can safely do so. 

 

[mkultra25]

3 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

No one ever has the right to run over a pedestrian, but if the pedestrian crosses not in a crosswalk, 

...then all bets are off if you're playing a video game from the 70s. Anyone remember this one? Frequently seen in arcades, restaurants, and anywhere else coin-op video games could be found back then.  And as the video title indicates, it did get quite a bit of bad press, which as near as I could tell had absolutely no effect on its popularity.