Unique, Odd, or Interesting Signs aka The good, the bad, and the ugly

Started by mass_citizen, December 04, 2013, 10:46:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

kphoger

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2015, 08:19:58 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2015, 10:54:25 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 10, 2015, 10:26:17 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 10, 2015, 09:33:03 AM
A pedestrian disobeying the DON'T WALK signal is still someone a driver has to yield to.

To avoid hitting, yes.  Legally, no.

Legally, yes. You, as a driver, are in fact legally obligated to yield to pedestrians even when they have broken the law and entered the roadway in violation of laws pertaining to them.

So when driving on the 75 mph Kansas Turnpike, if a pedestrian wanders into the road, legally everyone has to stop for him?  I don't think so.  That's why these blanket statements are almost always wrong.

Here's NJ's law pertaining to pedestrians.  While a pedestrian within a crosswalk (or unmarked crosswalk at intersections) are perceived to have the right of way, they certainly can't just wander willy-nilly:

Quote
39:4-36  Driver to yield to pedestrians, exceptions; violations, penalties.

39:4-36. a. The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except at crosswalks when the movement of traffic is being regulated by police officers or traffic control signals, or where otherwise regulated by municipal, county, or State regulation, and except where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided:

(1)The driver of a vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross the roadway within a marked 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.  As used in this paragraph, "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes conveying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

(2)No pedestrian shall leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield or stop.

(3)Whenever any vehicle is stopped 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.

(4)Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

(5)Nothing contained herein shall relieve a driver from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway. Nothing contained herein shall relieve a pedestrian from using due care for his safety.

Now, since you're from Kansas, maybe their law is different.  So I looked it up...and it's extremely similar to NJ's law.  In fact, there's nothing to indicate that "You, as a driver, are in fact legally obligated to yield to pedestrians even when they have broken the law and entered the roadway in violation of laws pertaining to them."  There is a provision that requires drivers to exercise due care to avoid hitting pedestrians, but that's not the same as saying the pedestrian is always right.

Kansas' laws pertaining to pedestrians:  http://www.ksdot.org/bureaus/burRail/bike/biking/KssidewalkStatutes.asp


So your saying that "exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway" does NOT necessarily include yielding to said pedestrian? The original post I quoted very clearly implied that it is legal to hit a pedestrian who has entered the road against a DON'T WALK signal, when such is obviously not the case.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.


Big John

From MUTCD Standard Sign Manual

Letters in the box in the bottom refer to the FHWA typeface to use.  First sign in this PDF file is the stop sign and say use series C in column D

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/SHSe/Regulatory.pdf

kphoger

And yes, if you're driving on the Turnpike at 75 mph and someone wanders out into the highway, you are legally obligated to avoid hitting him. If that means coming to a full stop (not sure how it would require that, but I'll bite), then so be it. There does not exist a point at which you just get to say "screw it" and mow someone down.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

1995hoo

"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

NE2

Quote from: spooky on March 11, 2015, 04:09:06 PM
I suspect you are in the minority. You know what most people do when they see a sign that is not in FHWA Highway Gothic font?

They stop.

This is the same people that claimed it's illegal to drive westbound along a road striped for travel in both directions because the city has not repealed an ordinance making the street one-way eastbound.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Big John

Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2015, 04:34:05 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 11, 2015, 04:04:53 PM
.... There is a reason they are the only octagonal signs ....

Someone needs to tell that to the GSA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.884849,-77.023894,3a,37.5y,356.91h,86.09t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1svu-NLiXmJ8wn5NzeFtvQCA!2e0
and WisDOT.  They put a octagonal DO NOT ENTER sign on the reverse side of the STOP sign in order to keep the shape for those facing the stop sign.

vtk

I think what I was remembering was this:
QuoteSection 1A.11 Relation to Other Publications

Standard:
01 To the extent that they are incorporated by specific reference, the latest editions of the following publications, or those editions specifically noted, shall be a part of this Manual: "Standard Highway Signs and Markings" book (FHWA); and "Color Specifications for Retroreflective Sign and Pavement Marking Materials" (appendix to subpart F of Part 655 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations).


Support:
02 The "Standard Highway Signs and Markings" book includes standard alphabets and symbols and arrows for signs and pavement markings.

I found this passage by searching for the phrase "standard alphabets".  So, indirectly, if Standard Highway Signs and Markings says to use a specific font (which it does for every sign, right?) then the MUTCD says to use that font.  What's less clear is how forceful that font specification is.  Though I'm having trouble locating corroborating verbiage, my hunch is it's on comparable ground with symbols and arrows, and therefore shall be "unmistakably similar to, or mirror images of" the Standard Alphabets as specified in SHS, per spooky's quote from chapter 2A.  I'll edit my previous post to indicate my belief at that time was not literally true.




Quote from: Big John on March 11, 2015, 04:37:19 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on March 11, 2015, 04:34:05 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 11, 2015, 04:04:53 PM
.... There is a reason they are the only octagonal signs ....

Someone needs to tell that to the GSA:

https://www.google.com/maps/@38.884849,-77.023894,3a,37.5y,356.91h,86.09t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1svu-NLiXmJ8wn5NzeFtvQCA!2e0
and WisDOT.  They put a octagonal DO NOT ENTER sign on the reverse side of the STOP sign in order to keep the shape for those facing the stop sign.

Wouldn't a round DO NOT ENTER sign fit nicely behind an octagonal STOP sign?
Wait, it's all Ohio? Always has been.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: spooky on March 11, 2015, 04:09:06 PM
I suspect you are in the minority. You know what most people do when they see a sign that is not in FHWA Highway Gothic font?

They stop.

I am still gonna stop yeah, I am not stupid.  But I think the standardization of the sign keeps the driver from having the split second distraction of "that stop sign looks a little off" or "the octagon is a bit narrow".  I think the point is to eliminate any distraction that can arise, even if it is a tenth of a second, because we are trying to control an intersection.  I know it may sound very petty, and it isn't like someone is going to run the stop sign if the font is wrong, but when there is something a bit different about the road, it will distract you.  After all, this forum would have half the posts it did if it wasn't for inconsistencies, so obviously they can distract a driver.


I think when I put down my original link it was because the stop sign was odd looking, regardless of how you stretch the rules to make it legal.  It was odd, just like when you see a trailblazer shield and the "TO" is in Arial font.  It is odd.

jakeroot

Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2015, 08:19:58 AM
So when driving on the 75 mph Kansas Turnpike, if a pedestrian wanders into the road, legally everyone has to stop for him?  I don't think so.  That's why these blanket statements are almost always wrong.

Sounds like murder if you don't stop for them. I mean, yeah, their fucking insane, but that doesn't give you the right to just plow over them.

PHLBOS

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 11, 2015, 04:40:06 PMI think when I put down my original link it was because the stop sign was odd looking, regardless of how you stretch the rules to make it legal.  It was odd, just like when you see a trailblazer shield and the "TO" is in Arial font.  It is odd.
In retrospect, had you just simply stated odd or unusual font as opposed to "non-MUTCD STOP sign" (which is a tad misleading IMHO); this thread would be about 10 to 15 replies shorter.  :)
GPS does NOT equal GOD

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: PHLBOS on March 11, 2015, 06:44:14 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 11, 2015, 04:40:06 PMI think when I put down my original link it was because the stop sign was odd looking, regardless of how you stretch the rules to make it legal.  It was odd, just like when you see a trailblazer shield and the "TO" is in Arial font.  It is odd.
In retrospect, had you just simply stated odd or unusual font as opposed to "non-MUTCD STOP sign" (which is a tad misleading IMHO); this thread would be about 10 to 15 replies shorter.  :)

Agreed, but I thought that was implied by the subject title.

Kacie Jane

Quote from: jakeroot on March 11, 2015, 05:44:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2015, 08:19:58 AM
So when driving on the 75 mph Kansas Turnpike, if a pedestrian wanders into the road, legally everyone has to stop for him?  I don't think so.  That's why these blanket statements are almost always wrong.

Sounds like murder if you don't stop for them. I mean, yeah, their fucking insane, but that doesn't give you the right to just plow over them.

Almost certainly not murder. Possibly manslaughter, especially if you also don't stop after the fact and it becomes a hit and run.  But generally if the motorist does everything else correctly, it's understood that you can't always stop on a dime, and frequently they're not even cited.

jakeroot

Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 12, 2015, 03:48:14 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on March 11, 2015, 05:44:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on March 11, 2015, 08:19:58 AM
So when driving on the 75 mph Kansas Turnpike, if a pedestrian wanders into the road, legally everyone has to stop for him?  I don't think so.  That's why these blanket statements are almost always wrong.

Sounds like murder if you don't stop for them. I mean, yeah, their fucking insane, but that doesn't give you the right to just plow over them.

Almost certainly not murder. Possibly manslaughter, especially if you also don't stop after the fact and it becomes a hit and run.  But generally if the motorist does everything else correctly, it's understood that you can't always stop on a dime, and frequently they're not even cited.

Good point. Forgot about "manslaughter" as an alternative to murder.

My point was, if you are driving along a road, and you see someone standing in it, you cannot knowingly run over them.

If you turn a corner, and someone is just standing there without cause, and you can prove that you could not see them, then that's okay. But if you can see them plain as day, you need to stop.

I am drawing a line between someone darting out into traffic and someone standing in a lane of travel for a significant period of time, long enough to be noticed by even the least attentive motorist.

kphoger

Right. A pedestrian disobeying the law does allow a driver permission to not avoid hitting him. New Jersey's law, above, clearly states in 39:4-36(5) that none of the other laws shall be interpreted to mean that's ever OK. No, that doesn't mean the pedestrian is always right. What it does mean is that the driver has to yield to the pedestrian no matter who was right or wrong when that kind of situation presents itself. The same section also gives pedestrians the responsibility to watch out for drivers who fail to obey their regulations and laws, but with slightly different wording due to the fact that pedestrians are the ones more at risk of injury when bumper meets flesh. "Right of way" is not generally a term used in American traffic law; that is, laws are not generally worded to say that it's OK for you to go while everyone else must yield to you. Rather, they are generally always restrictive; that is, they are worded to say when each person must give way to others. "Taking the right of way" sounds good but is not generally a legally protected action, should anything bad happen.

This is actually a hard thing to teach children, in my experience. I am one who is not afraid to "take the right of way" when crossing the street as a pedestrian. I've had years of experience doing so, and I know the laws well. If I know that a coming vehicle is obligated to yield to me as I legally cross the street in a crosswalk, then I'm usually not going to bother waiting. But I am keenly aware, out of the corner of my eye, of the vehicle's movement, and I'm ready to avoid being hit if that vehicle doesn't yield. So how do I teach that to my sons? to be bold and not intimidated when traveling on foot, but also to be scared of being hit at the same time.

I know, when I was a child, it irked me that my parents would wait a few extra seconds at a four-way stop to make sure cross traffic was actually stopping. My argument was that, if the other car hit ours, then it would be the other driver's fault. My mom's reply was that that didn't wouldn't matter because the car would be damaged, no matter whose fault it was (not to mention bodily harm, which she didn't). That just didn't make sense to my young mind.

Back on the actual topic of "Yield to pedestrians" versus "Stop for pedestrians" signs, my initial reaction is that Stop is overkill. But, upon reflection, I think it's a good idea for two reasons: (1) We Americans tend to blow through Yield signs too quickly, interpreting them to mean "this stretch of road isn't busy enough for a Stop sign, so there's probably nobody to give way to, so why bother slowing down very much"; especially where there a lot of pedestrians crossing the street, drivers could benefit from the more forceful language. (2) The next step up from signs is usually a dedicated crosswalk stoplight, and those always seem to stay red for-freaking-ever before turning green again. I'm in favor of exploring signage options before installing one of those.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

PHLBOS

Quote from: jakeroot on March 12, 2015, 04:19:49 AM
Quote from: Kacie Jane on March 12, 2015, 03:48:14 AMAlmost certainly not murder. Possibly manslaughter, especially if you also don't stop after the fact and it becomes a hit and run.  But generally if the motorist does everything else correctly, it's understood that you can't always stop on a dime, and frequently they're not even cited.

Good point. Forgot about "manslaughter" as an alternative to murder.
Actually the main difference between murder and manslaughter is that the latter is not a malicious act (aka absence of malice).

Quote from: jakeroot on March 12, 2015, 04:19:49 AMMy point was, if you are driving along a road, and you see someone standing in it, you cannot knowingly run over them.

If you turn a corner, and someone is just standing there without cause, and you can prove that you could not see them, then that's okay. But if you can see them plain as day, you need to stop.

I am drawing a line between someone darting out into traffic and someone standing in a lane of travel for a significant period of time, long enough to be noticed by even the least attentive motorist.
It is my understanding that most if not all expressways/freeways in the U.S. prohibit pedestrians from using them.  Most of not all accidents involving pedestrians getting struck (and possibly killed) on freeways usually involves either:

1.  The pedestrian intentionally placing themselves in harm's way, be it a dare or a suicide (attempt).

2.  A stranded motorist getting out of their car and crossing the expressway for some reason (example: while changing a tire, the spare accidentally rolls out towards traffic and the motorist tries to retrieve it by crossing the road).

3.  An errant vehicle swerving into the shoulder striking a pedestrian; be it stranded motorist that's either standing or walking towards the back of their vehicle for something, or a state trooper that happens to be on the scene.  The latter is one reason why many police officers now approach a stopped vehicle from the passenger's side during traffic stops.  There have been cases where cops have been struck by a passing vehicle (be it an expressway or a conventional street) while making a traffic stop.

Long story short, the so-called pedestrian always having the right-of-way - no matter what; I don't believe, fully applies in an expressway/freeway scenario.  Case in point; the demonstrators along two-sections of I-93 near Boston that took place earlier this year did not have the right-of-way to stop/disrupt traffic along that highway.

Quote from: kphoger on March 12, 2015, 09:44:51 AMBack on the actual topic of "Yield to pedestrians" versus "Stop for pedestrians" signs, my initial reaction is that Stop is overkill. But, upon reflection, I think it's a good idea for two reasons: (1) We Americans tend to blow through Yield signs too quickly, interpreting them to mean "this stretch of road isn't busy enough for a Stop sign, so there's probably nobody to give way to, so why bother slowing down very much"; especially where there a lot of pedestrians crossing the street, drivers could benefit from the more forceful language. (2) The next step up from signs is usually a dedicated crosswalk stoplight, and those always seem to stay red for-freaking-ever before turning green again. I'm in favor of exploring signage options before installing one of those.
Where I reside, I've usually seen Stop for Pedestrians signs at crossings where the roadway traffic is not making any turns.  The Yield to Pedestrian signs are usually posted where turning vehicles will encounter a pedestrian crossing area or crosswalk.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

1995hoo

Quote from: PHLBOS on March 12, 2015, 10:16:38 AM
Quote from: kphoger on March 12, 2015, 09:44:51 AMBack on the actual topic of "Yield to pedestrians" versus "Stop for pedestrians" signs, my initial reaction is that Stop is overkill. But, upon reflection, I think it's a good idea for two reasons: (1) We Americans tend to blow through Yield signs too quickly, interpreting them to mean "this stretch of road isn't busy enough for a Stop sign, so there's probably nobody to give way to, so why bother slowing down very much"; especially where there a lot of pedestrians crossing the street, drivers could benefit from the more forceful language. (2) The next step up from signs is usually a dedicated crosswalk stoplight, and those always seem to stay red for-freaking-ever before turning green again. I'm in favor of exploring signage options before installing one of those.
Where I reside, I've usually seen Stop for Pedestrains signs at crossings where the roadway traffic is not making any turns.  The Yield to Pedestrain signs are usually posted where turning vehicles will encounter a pedestrain crossing area or crosswalk.

I think I brought up "Yield to Pedestrians." In Virginia, that variant is the only one that's used at all–the state MUTCD supplement specifically provides that "Stop for Pedestrians" is not to be used here. I believe the reason is that the statute requires drivers to "yield" to pedestrians in certain circumstances and specifically allows a driver to change course or slow down, rather than stopping, if those alternatives are safe under the circumstances. The statute also refers to yielding to pedestrians "[a]t any intersection when the driver is approaching on a highway or street where the legal maximum speed does not exceed 35 miles per hour," which I find interesting because some of the bad pedestrian behavior is not limited to roads with speed limits that low.

"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

jakeroot

Quote from: PHLBOS on March 12, 2015, 10:16:38 AM
Long story short, the so-called pedestrian always having the right-of-way - no matter what; I don't believe, fully applies in an expressway/freeway scenario.  Case in point; the demonstrators along two-sections of I-93 near Boston that took place earlier this year did not have the right-of-way to stop/disrupt traffic along that highway.

I concur. There are many places where pedestrians do not the right of way. I am not arguing against that. What I am trying to say is, you, just as equally, have no right to knowingly kill someone. Case in point; the drivers on I-93 stopped for the protesters because if they didn't, then they would have killed them (which is, of course, vehicular manslaughter).

Perhaps its just me, but the merits of right-of-way should only be discussed if said right-of-way isn't already occupied (minus situations whereby the right-of-way is very suddenly occupied and others do not have time to react to the sudden occupation).

kphoger

Having the right of way is not an American legal concept. There are scenarios in which the law requires pedestrians to yield to drivers. There are scenarios in which drivers must yield to pedestrians. Sometimes those two overlap. But traffic laws don't say "You have the right to go ahead." Even laws about green lights include the word "caution" and waiting for traffic to clear before proceeding.

And so a freeway's prohibiting pedestrian traffic may seem like it allows a driver to not yield to errant pedestrians, but such rights are not granted to drivers by law, regardless of the type of road they are on.

I've only ever seen a Yield to Pedestrians sign, never a Stop for Pedestrians sign, by the way.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

PHLBOS

Quote from: jakeroot on March 12, 2015, 01:39:49 PMCase in point; the drivers on I-93 stopped for the protesters because if they didn't, then they would have killed them (which is, of course, vehicular manslaughter).
I'm sure of them thought of doing such... especially after they knew who the protesters were (mostly rich spoiled brats).

All joking aside, when someone's killed by getting struck by a vehicle; the charge is known as vehicular homicide.

Quote from: kphoger on March 12, 2015, 02:42:06 PMI've only ever seen a Yield to Pedestrians sign, never a Stop for Pedestrians sign, by the way.
I've seen examples of R1-6a signs (scroll down) situated inside the double-yellow stripes along Swarthmore Ave. in Swarthmore, PA near the railroad crossing (GSV for this area predates the installation of such signs).  So such signs are indeed out there and in use.
GPS does NOT equal GOD

jeffandnicole

Quote from: NE2 on March 11, 2015, 04:37:15 PM
Quote from: spooky on March 11, 2015, 04:09:06 PM
I suspect you are in the minority. You know what most people do when they see a sign that is not in FHWA Highway Gothic font?

They stop.

This is the same people that claimed it's illegal to drive westbound along a road striped for travel in both directions because the city has not repealed an ordinance making the street one-way eastbound.

I heart you.

BTW, it was not the same people.  My statement regarding this was there isn't any specific font that shall be used; not "since it's not the right font, you can ignore it".

jeffandnicole

Quote
And yes, if you're driving on the Turnpike at 75 mph and someone wanders out into the highway, you are legally obligated to avoid hitting him. If that means coming to a full stop (not sure how it would require that, but I'll bite), then so be it. There does not exist a point at which you just get to say "screw it" and mow someone down.

Due to the rate of speed on a highway, if someone is standing in a lane, you do what you can to avoid hitting them.  However, I would argue stopping is not prudent depending on the circumstance.  What if you have a tractor trailer behind you, which takes longer to stop?  If you stopped and tractor trailer runs into you, he'll potentially push you into pedestrian anyway, and tractor trailer is probably going to jackknife into another lane, causing more mayhem.  Should the tractor trailer have left more room?  Yes.  Have you always followed the absolute letter of the law yourself?  No.

You will have a very tough time finding a news story when someone was charged for hitting a pedestrian in a travel lane of a high-speed highway.  As long as the driver wasn't under the influence and wasn't distracted, it's almost always going to be found to the pedestrians' fault, and many times chalked up to a suicide or something wrong with the pedestrian.  Go ahead...try to find a news story where the driver was charged for hitting a pedestrian in the travel lanes of a highway.  You'll find a ton of "Police are investigating" stories.  If it's determined the driver was at fault, quite often you'll find a news story stating why.  When the pedestrian is found at fault, rarely will you see a followup story. 

Quote
Sounds like murder if you don't stop for them. I mean, yeah, their fucking insane, but that doesn't give you the right to just plow over them.

In the land of making up stuff, Never did I say plow them over.  But as mentioned above, a 75 mph highway is a very different field than a 25 mph roadway.  It's common sense to expect pedestrians on local roads.  The rarity of pedestrians on an interstate highway leads to the assumption that even if you think you see someone standing on the highway ahead, by the time you even have a chance to react to it, you'll be right on top of them.

Quote
Case in point; the drivers on I-93 stopped for the protesters because if they didn't, then they would have killed them (which is, of course, vehicular manslaughter).

I'm pretty sure traffic was already congested, and these people simply walked out into that line of traffic.  (If they didn't stop for them intentionally, it's vehicular manslaughter.  If a protestor suddenly ran in front of traffic and got it, it's not vehicular manslaughter)

But even this is a totally different situation.  Pedestrians have the right to cross the roadway.  These protestors were arrested because they didn't belong on the roadway, blocking traffic.  And in one high-profile story, one protestor was fired from their government job.  I'll bet that if any of the others were employed, and their boss found out they were out there...especially if said boss was stuck in the ensuing traffic, they were probably fired as well.  Again, clear distinction: Pedestrians obeying the law have the legal right to the roadway.  Pedestrians jaywalking shouldn't be run into if at all possible, but are subject to a ticket...and in extreme cases, arrest.

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

renegade

Quote from: kphoger on March 12, 2015, 02:42:06 PM
Having the right of way is not an American legal concept. There are scenarios in which the law requires pedestrians to yield to drivers. There are scenarios in which drivers must yield to pedestrians. Sometimes those two overlap. But traffic laws don't say "You have the right to go ahead." Even laws about green lights include the word "caution" and waiting for traffic to clear before proceeding.

And so a freeway's prohibiting pedestrian traffic may seem like it allows a driver to not yield to errant pedestrians, but such rights are not granted to drivers by law, regardless of the type of road they are on.

I've only ever seen a Yield to Pedestrians sign, never a Stop for Pedestrians sign, by the way.

Come to Ann Arbor.  You will see them everywhere.  Pedestrians are special there.  The text-messaging generation has the right-of-way at all times.  They are not required to look before stepping out into the street.  Drivers, on the other hand, must STOP mid-block on the busiest 45-mph roadways if a pedestrian even LOOKS like he/she might be THINKING about crossing the street sometime in the next week to ten days.
Don’t ask me how I know.  Just understand that I do.

The Nature Boy

Quote from: renegade on March 14, 2015, 12:00:57 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 12, 2015, 02:42:06 PM
Having the right of way is not an American legal concept. There are scenarios in which the law requires pedestrians to yield to drivers. There are scenarios in which drivers must yield to pedestrians. Sometimes those two overlap. But traffic laws don't say "You have the right to go ahead." Even laws about green lights include the word "caution" and waiting for traffic to clear before proceeding.

And so a freeway's prohibiting pedestrian traffic may seem like it allows a driver to not yield to errant pedestrians, but such rights are not granted to drivers by law, regardless of the type of road they are on.

I've only ever seen a Yield to Pedestrians sign, never a Stop for Pedestrians sign, by the way.

Come to Ann Arbor.  You will see them everywhere.  Pedestrians are special there.  The text-messaging generation has the right-of-way at all times.  They are not required to look before stepping out into the street.  Drivers, on the other hand, must STOP mid-block on the busiest 45-mph roadways if a pedestrian even LOOKS like he/she might be THINKING about crossing the street sometime in the next week to ten days.

I got a ticket once in New Hampshire for failing to yield to a pedestrian who was crossing a 4 lane road when I was in the far right lane and thus in no danger of remotely coming close to him. The officer told me that I am to stop the minute that the pedestrian gets onto the roadway, no matter where I happen to be.

I should've challenged that ticket.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: renegade on March 14, 2015, 12:00:57 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 12, 2015, 02:42:06 PM
Having the right of way is not an American legal concept. There are scenarios in which the law requires pedestrians to yield to drivers. There are scenarios in which drivers must yield to pedestrians. Sometimes those two overlap. But traffic laws don't say "You have the right to go ahead." Even laws about green lights include the word "caution" and waiting for traffic to clear before proceeding.

And so a freeway's prohibiting pedestrian traffic may seem like it allows a driver to not yield to errant pedestrians, but such rights are not granted to drivers by law, regardless of the type of road they are on.

I've only ever seen a Yield to Pedestrians sign, never a Stop for Pedestrians sign, by the way.

Come to Ann Arbor.  You will see them everywhere.  Pedestrians are special there.  The text-messaging generation has the right-of-way at all times.  They are not required to look before stepping out into the street.  Drivers, on the other hand, must STOP mid-block on the busiest 45-mph roadways if a pedestrian even LOOKS like he/she might be THINKING about crossing the street sometime in the next week to ten days.

It comes down to the wording of the law.  Many states have 'Yield to Pedestrians'.  Some states have 'Stop for Pedestrians'.  Personally, the differences between the two are pretty vague.  If you see someone walking in a crosswalk, you wait for them to cross. 



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.