An idea for new pedestrian signs.

[kalvado]

I'll like to have you find an occasion where a motorist on a 70/75 mph highway was found guilty of hitting a pedestrian wandering around in the travel lanes of a highway far away from their vehicle.

If hitting a cop who was conducting regular "sales" transaction with pulled over vehicle counts as such, I should be able to come up with some examples.

It does not, as I clearly said away from their vehicle. Clesrly, your hatred for cops is evident by ignoring the specifics in my request.

Just to clarify - you may be confusing me with someone else.

As for using cops as example - they do tend to get into these type of a situations since doing unusual things on a road is part of their job; and such accidents tend to get into news feed.

[RobbieL2415]

drivers are ALWAYS supposed to yield to pedestrians in the road

True.

Not if they are:
-Crossing at an uncontrolled or sign-controlled intersection at any point other than a crosswalk or unmarked crosswalk.  If there is at least one sidewalk anywhere in the intersection there is at least one crosswalk.  If there are no sidewalks then there are NO crosswalks and peds, by law, must yield to vehicles.
-Crossing at a crosswalk against the order of a police officer or traffic control device.
-Crossing in proximity of a pedestrian bridge

Every state has a law that vehicles must exercise care near pedestrians and are permitted to use their horns to alert peds of their presence.  There are times where, yes, you need to let them cross because it would be unsafe otherwise, such as parking lots.  You obviously can't hit a ped already in the road, but it is unlawful for you to grant the ROW to a ped waiting to cross when they don't actually have the ROW.  The only time a ped has ABSOLUTE ROW and you must grant it to them is when they are blind and carrying a cane with a white tip or walking with a guide dog.

Also on any university campus.

Very true.  College kids walk where they please.

[SSOWorld]

I'll like to have you find an occasion where a motorist on a 70/75 mph highway was found guilty of hitting a pedestrian wandering around in the travel lanes of a highway far away from their vehicle.

If hitting a cop who was conducting regular "sales" transaction with pulled over vehicle counts as such, I should be able to come up with some examples.

It does not, as I clearly said away from their vehicle. Clesrly, your hatred for cops is evident by ignoring the specifics in my request.

Just to clarify - you may be confusing me with someone else.

As for using cops as example - they do tend to get into these type of a situations since doing unusual things on a road is part of their job; and such accidents tend to get into news feed.

There are separate laws that handle this.  These are called move-over laws.

[kalvado]

I'll like to have you find an occasion where a motorist on a 70/75 mph highway was found guilty of hitting a pedestrian wandering around in the travel lanes of a highway far away from their vehicle.

If hitting a cop who was conducting regular "sales" transaction with pulled over vehicle counts as such, I should be able to come up with some examples.

It does not, as I clearly said away from their vehicle. Clesrly, your hatred for cops is evident by ignoring the specifics in my request.

Just to clarify - you may be confusing me with someone else.

As for using cops as example - they do tend to get into these type of a situations since doing unusual things on a road is part of their job; and such accidents tend to get into news feed.

There are separate laws that handle this.  These are called move-over laws.

Maybe we lost track of the message.
Lets try to summarize.
1. It is never OK to just hit a pedestrian.
2. When pedestrian (person not in a vehicle) is on a road for legal reason, driver must yield. This includes pedestrian within marked or unmarked crosswalk, pedestrian or bicyclist moving along the road (is there is no sidewalk for pedestrian), and emergency service (roadside assistance - at least those are covered by move over in NY, police etc) in any situation. Latter is accompanied by some warning lights to give advance warning. Yield means anticipating the situation and be prepared to stop. Failure to do so may lead to legal charges all the way to manslaughter.
3. best effort to avoid in any other situation. That includes jaywalking and what not. Situation cannot be reasonably anticipated, and there is no direct penalty for situation - but may become more common if cameras show failure to "best effort" - not breaking or otherwise trying to avoid accident. Indirect penalty, such as time spent on investigation, are a given. 

[Scott5114]

[roadfro]

Instead of general statements like "State Law: Yield/Stop for pedestrians in crosswalk" at all intersections, why not instead have them say "State Law: Yield/Stop for pedestrians lawfully in crosswalk" at intersections controlled by stoplights?  The current MUTCD sign is too vague for that situation; it's unlawful in all 50 states plus DC to cross against a ped control signal or on a red light.  Additional signs for peds at crosswalks could read "Unlawful to cross on red light/ "Don't Walk" signal.

The problem with your premise is that the signs you're describing (the in-street or overhead crosswalk signs) are only supposed to be used at uncontrolled pedestrian crossings. The purpose of these signs is to remind drivers that, absent a controlling device like stop/yield signs or traffic signals, drivers must stop/yield for pedestrians in the crosswalk. Thus, the suggestion of changing wording is not needed.

Also, for direction to pedestrians at signals, there already exists a "cross only on (walking man symbol)" sign which achieves a similar purpose to the "unlawful to cross on don't walk" that you propose.

[bzakharin]

I think the point is that you're supposed to stop for a pedestrian wanting to cross legally even if they have not started crossing yet or are crossing a portion of the roadway you are not on, whereas there is no such requirement for an illegal crossing. You yield only if someone is in your way.

[kphoger]

I think the point is that you're supposed to stop for a pedestrian wanting to cross legally even if they have not started crossing yet or are crossing a portion of the roadway you are not on, whereas there is no such requirement for an illegal crossing. You yield only if someone is in your way.

This law varies by state.  Some states require a driver to give way when a ped is IN a crosswalk but not when they are ABOUT to be in a crosswalk.  Other states require a driver to give way in both situations.

[epzik8]

Interesting

[RobbieL2415]

The law in every state should be when one foot is in the crosswalk, you yield.  Intent to cross is subjective from driver to driver.  One foot in the crosswalk, though, and you know that person wants to cross, without question.

[kphoger]

I personally base my decision on the pedestrian's movement or lack thereof.  If they are a couple of feet from the road but are still walking or at least inching towards the road, then I'll stop and let them by.  If, however, they are just standing on the curb waiting for the world to stop, then I assume they must not be in a hurry to cross the street.

[bzakharin]

I personally base my decision on the pedestrian's movement or lack thereof.  If they are a couple of feet from the road but are still walking or at least inching towards the road, then I'll stop and let them by.  If, however, they are just standing on the curb waiting for the world to stop, then I assume they must not be in a hurry to cross the street.

This only works if the pedestrian can be sure you're going to stop. When I need to cross the road, I stand in the crosswalk on the shoulder right next to the curb waiting for either a break in traffic long enough to cross or for someone to stop, because about 60% of the traffic won't. I know there are pedestrians who just blindly enter the crosswalk without looking, but to me that's a recipe for an accident. And frankly, enforcement is not really there in my area. I've seen a police officer in the crosswalk actually gesturing at a car to stop which it only did at the last moment. The officer yelled at the driver, but accepted the "I didn't see you" (not "I didn't notice the people in the crosswalk", mind you) defense at let him go.

[kphoger]

I personally base my decision on the pedestrian's movement or lack thereof.  If they are a couple of feet from the road but are still walking or at least inching towards the road, then I'll stop and let them by.  If, however, they are just standing on the curb waiting for the world to stop, then I assume they must not be in a hurry to cross the street.

This only works if the pedestrian can be sure you're going to stop. When I need to cross the road, I stand in the crosswalk on the shoulder right next to the curb waiting for either a break in traffic long enough to cross or for someone to stop, because about 60% of the traffic won't. I know there are pedestrians who just blindly enter the crosswalk without looking, but to me that's a recipe for an accident. And frankly, enforcement is not really there in my area. I've seen a police officer in the crosswalk actually gesturing at a car to stop which it only did at the last moment. The officer yelled at the driver, but accepted the "I didn't see you" (not "I didn't notice the people in the crosswalk", mind you) defense at let him go.

I became fairly adept at crossing the street on foot, having lived in Chicagoland for several years without a car.  When I need to cross, I have no expectation that any driver will stop for me if I'm not actually in motion.  You might even think I'm one of those people who blindly enter the crosswalk without looking, but rest assured I'm fully aware of where all the cars are and where my exits are if they don't stop.  But turning my head to look at the driver could be interpreted as a signal for them to go ahead, and I want no part of that.

I have noticed that having small children in tow encourages a LOT more drivers to stop and let you cross, even when you're well back from the curb and looking the other way.  Which means drivers definitely SEE you, by golly, they just decide you don't matter enough to stop for unless you have children with you.

[UCFKnights]

I personally base my decision on the pedestrian's movement or lack thereof.  If they are a couple of feet from the road but are still walking or at least inching towards the road, then I'll stop and let them by.  If, however, they are just standing on the curb waiting for the world to stop, then I assume they must not be in a hurry to cross the street.

This only works if the pedestrian can be sure you're going to stop. When I need to cross the road, I stand in the crosswalk on the shoulder right next to the curb waiting for either a break in traffic long enough to cross or for someone to stop, because about 60% of the traffic won't. I know there are pedestrians who just blindly enter the crosswalk without looking, but to me that's a recipe for an accident. And frankly, enforcement is not really there in my area. I've seen a police officer in the crosswalk actually gesturing at a car to stop which it only did at the last moment. The officer yelled at the driver, but accepted the "I didn't see you" (not "I didn't notice the people in the crosswalk", mind you) defense at let him go.

I became fairly adept at crossing the street on foot, having lived in Chicagoland for several years without a car.  When I need to cross, I have no expectation that any driver will stop for me if I'm not actually in motion.  You might even think I'm one of those people who blindly enter the crosswalk without looking, but rest assured I'm fully aware of where all the cars are and where my exits are if they don't stop.  But turning my head to look at the driver could be interpreted as a signal for them to go ahead, and I want no part of that.

I have noticed that having small children in tow encourages a LOT more drivers to stop and let you cross, even when you're well back from the curb and looking the other way.  Which means drivers definitely SEE you, by golly, they just decide you don't matter enough to stop for unless you have children with you.

I'm a big believer that, when there is no pedestrian signals, the pedestrians should be courteous to drivers just as they expect it from the drivers. If your a pedestrian crossing a street, and there is a group of 5 cars coming, already at speed, and then a clear gap behind them, the courteous thing is to not make them all come to a stop and wait the 10 seconds it takes for them to pass. If another pedestrian is trailing 10 seconds behind you, instead of making the cars stop for you arrive at the crosswalk and then they still won't be able to go when you're finishing as the next person is arriving, slow down and wait a few seconds for them to catch up so you can stop cars for a shorter amount of time. You know, kind of treat it like there was a well programmed signal at the crosswalk. I know these things aren't the law, but its the courteous thing to do. I don't believe pedestrians are more important then cars, or vice versa, for the most part, we've all been in both situations.

[kphoger]

I personally base my decision on the pedestrian's movement or lack thereof.  If they are a couple of feet from the road but are still walking or at least inching towards the road, then I'll stop and let them by.  If, however, they are just standing on the curb waiting for the world to stop, then I assume they must not be in a hurry to cross the street.

This only works if the pedestrian can be sure you're going to stop. When I need to cross the road, I stand in the crosswalk on the shoulder right next to the curb waiting for either a break in traffic long enough to cross or for someone to stop, because about 60% of the traffic won't. I know there are pedestrians who just blindly enter the crosswalk without looking, but to me that's a recipe for an accident. And frankly, enforcement is not really there in my area. I've seen a police officer in the crosswalk actually gesturing at a car to stop which it only did at the last moment. The officer yelled at the driver, but accepted the "I didn't see you" (not "I didn't notice the people in the crosswalk", mind you) defense at let him go.

I became fairly adept at crossing the street on foot, having lived in Chicagoland for several years without a car.  When I need to cross, I have no expectation that any driver will stop for me if I'm not actually in motion.  You might even think I'm one of those people who blindly enter the crosswalk without looking, but rest assured I'm fully aware of where all the cars are and where my exits are if they don't stop.  But turning my head to look at the driver could be interpreted as a signal for them to go ahead, and I want no part of that.

I have noticed that having small children in tow encourages a LOT more drivers to stop and let you cross, even when you're well back from the curb and looking the other way.  Which means drivers definitely SEE you, by golly, they just decide you don't matter enough to stop for unless you have children with you.

I'm a big believer that, when there is no pedestrian signals, the pedestrians should be courteous to drivers just as they expect it from the drivers. If your a pedestrian crossing a street, and there is a group of 5 cars coming, already at speed, and then a clear gap behind them, the courteous thing is to not make them all come to a stop and wait the 10 seconds it takes for them to pass. If another pedestrian is trailing 10 seconds behind you, instead of making the cars stop for you arrive at the crosswalk and then they still won't be able to go when you're finishing as the next person is arriving, slow down and wait a few seconds for them to catch up so you can stop cars for a shorter amount of time. You know, kind of treat it like there was a well programmed signal at the crosswalk. I know these things aren't the law, but its the courteous thing to do. I don't believe pedestrians are more important then cars, or vice versa, for the most part, we've all been in both situations.

I agree.  But in that case, I don't hang out at the very edge of the road.  I stay back from the edge, then make a steady, bold move across the street at the more opportune moment.

I am genuinely curious, and I mean no disrespect by this...  If I flip your scenario around, would your assertion (that neither pedestrians nor cars are more important than the other) still hold true?  If you are a driving down the street, and there is a group of five people about to cross the street mid-block with no crosswalk, at a brisk pace, and there is a clear gap behind them, is the courteous thing to stop and let them cross?  Or would you rather make all the pedestrians come to a stop and wait the 5 seconds it takes for you to drive by?  By law, these scenarios are analogous:  in the first, drivers are expected to yield to pedestrians (crosswalk); in the second, pedestrians are expected to yield to drivers (no crosswalk).

[UCFKnights]

I personally base my decision on the pedestrian's movement or lack thereof.  If they are a couple of feet from the road but are still walking or at least inching towards the road, then I'll stop and let them by.  If, however, they are just standing on the curb waiting for the world to stop, then I assume they must not be in a hurry to cross the street.

This only works if the pedestrian can be sure you're going to stop. When I need to cross the road, I stand in the crosswalk on the shoulder right next to the curb waiting for either a break in traffic long enough to cross or for someone to stop, because about 60% of the traffic won't. I know there are pedestrians who just blindly enter the crosswalk without looking, but to me that's a recipe for an accident. And frankly, enforcement is not really there in my area. I've seen a police officer in the crosswalk actually gesturing at a car to stop which it only did at the last moment. The officer yelled at the driver, but accepted the "I didn't see you" (not "I didn't notice the people in the crosswalk", mind you) defense at let him go.

I became fairly adept at crossing the street on foot, having lived in Chicagoland for several years without a car.  When I need to cross, I have no expectation that any driver will stop for me if I'm not actually in motion.  You might even think I'm one of those people who blindly enter the crosswalk without looking, but rest assured I'm fully aware of where all the cars are and where my exits are if they don't stop.  But turning my head to look at the driver could be interpreted as a signal for them to go ahead, and I want no part of that.

I have noticed that having small children in tow encourages a LOT more drivers to stop and let you cross, even when you're well back from the curb and looking the other way.  Which means drivers definitely SEE you, by golly, they just decide you don't matter enough to stop for unless you have children with you.

I'm a big believer that, when there is no pedestrian signals, the pedestrians should be courteous to drivers just as they expect it from the drivers. If your a pedestrian crossing a street, and there is a group of 5 cars coming, already at speed, and then a clear gap behind them, the courteous thing is to not make them all come to a stop and wait the 10 seconds it takes for them to pass. If another pedestrian is trailing 10 seconds behind you, instead of making the cars stop for you arrive at the crosswalk and then they still won't be able to go when you're finishing as the next person is arriving, slow down and wait a few seconds for them to catch up so you can stop cars for a shorter amount of time. You know, kind of treat it like there was a well programmed signal at the crosswalk. I know these things aren't the law, but its the courteous thing to do. I don't believe pedestrians are more important then cars, or vice versa, for the most part, we've all been in both situations.

I agree.  But in that case, I don't hang out at the very edge of the road.  I stay back from the edge, then make a steady, bold move across the street at the more opportune moment.

I am genuinely curious, and I mean no disrespect by this...  If I flip your scenario around, would your assertion (that neither pedestrians nor cars are more important than the other) still hold true?  If you are a driving down the street, and there is a group of five people about to cross the street mid-block with no crosswalk, at a brisk pace, and there is a clear gap behind them, is the courteous thing to stop and let them cross?  Or would you rather make all the pedestrians come to a stop and wait the 5 seconds it takes for you to drive by?  By law, these scenarios are analogous:  in the first, drivers are expected to yield to pedestrians (crosswalk); in the second, pedestrians are expected to yield to drivers (no crosswalk).

I have done that on occasion. It depends on a number of factors... the faster I'm going, the less likely, as it will lead to less delays for everyone for me to just go (one of my pet peeves is when I'm waving, letting someone go so they don't need to stop, and they stop anyways to let me go... at that point its faster for BOTH OF US if you just went, I already stopped). If there's no sign of a gap behind me so these people aren't gonna get a chance in a reasonable amount of time to go, I'm much more likely to stop. It probably also depends on my mood and how much of a rush I'm in TBH.

[Scott5114]

I have noticed that having small children in tow encourages a LOT more drivers to stop and let you cross, even when you're well back from the curb and looking the other way.  Which means drivers definitely SEE you, by golly, they just decide you don't matter enough to stop for unless you have children with you.

I think the mental calculation is that as an adult you know well enough to not step out in front of oncoming traffic. Little kids, on the other hand might be too dumb to wait, and may behave erratically and unpredictably. Thus, it's better to stop out of an abundance of caution, when such caution isn't necessarily justified for an adult.

[kphoger]

I have noticed that having small children in tow encourages a LOT more drivers to stop and let you cross, even when you're well back from the curb and looking the other way.  Which means drivers definitely SEE you, by golly, they just decide you don't matter enough to stop for unless you have children with you.

I think the mental calculation is that as an adult you know well enough to not step out in front of oncoming traffic. Little kids, on the other hand might be too dumb to wait, and may behave erratically and unpredictably. Thus, it's better to stop out of an abundance of caution, when such caution isn't necessarily justified for an adult.

Separate issue.  I mean, we can be holding all our kids' hands, stop four yards short of the curb, wait patiently, purposefully do everything we can to look like we're not going to cross yet–and almost every driver will still stop and politely let us cross, with a smile and a nod and a wave.  I see it time and time again.  Without kids in tow, however, I never see the same politeness.

[bicyclehazard]

drivers are ALWAYS supposed to yield to pedestrians in the road

True.

Not if they are:
-Crossing at an uncontrolled or sign-controlled intersection at any point other than a crosswalk or unmarked crosswalk.  If there is at least one sidewalk anywhere in the intersection there is at least one crosswalk.  If there are no sidewalks then there are NO crosswalks and peds, by law, must yield to vehicles.
-Crossing at a crosswalk against the order of a police officer or traffic control device.
-Crossing in proximity of a pedestrian bridge

Every state has a law that vehicles must exercise care near pedestrians and are permitted to use their horns to alert peds of their presence.  There are times where, yes, you need to let them cross because it would be unsafe otherwise, such as parking lots.  You obviously can't hit a ped already in the road, but it is unlawful for you to grant the ROW to a ped waiting to cross when they don't actually have the ROW.  The only time a ped has ABSOLUTE ROW and you must grant it to them is when they are blind and carrying a cane with a white tip or walking with a guide dog.

I was arrested by a Washington State police officer named Nicolas Brewer for failing to obey a police officer who is authorized to direct traffic. I took me around to 15 minutes find the law and read it. Police officers in Washington state are not authorized to give pedestrians orders. The judge knew something funny was going on and I was released with out posting bail. The district attorney of Washington State did not even bother to look up the law. He was furious with the police for wasting his time and refused to prosecute me. I was also told that even if I did break the law he would not have prosecuted me. Any time I can educate a lawyer about the true nature of the police I win. Just in case you are wondering what the case was all about the State of Washington violated Title 23 Section 109m United States code.