An idea for new pedestrian signs.

[RobbieL2415]

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.

[ilpt4u]

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.

It is also State Law in IL to stop for any Peds in a Crosswalk, regardless, if you are in a Motor Vehicle

If a Ped is in the Crosswalk illegally, it is still not ok to strike them with a motor vehicle...

Peds need to respect crossing guards, signage, markings, and lights, absolutely. And motorists need to be mindful of peds as well

[AlexandriaVA]

Because it's a useless endeavor and a lame attempt to justify victim-blaming.

Furthermore, drivers cannot determine whether or not pedestrians are acting lawful or not.

[RobbieL2415]

Because it's a useless endeavor and a lame attempt to justify victim-blaming.

Furthermore, drivers cannot determine whether or not pedestrians are acting lawful or not.

Can't they determine it simply by noting that they are crossing against a don't walk signal or red light?  Or do you mean from a legal perspective?  If it's that latter than I agree.  My problem is that motorists assume that peds have absolute ROW everywhere and peds also follow the same logic.  A little education never hurt anyone.

[Duke87]

The existence of any such signs at all is a great example of the inane practice we have in this country of designing traffic control assuming no one knows how to drive.

I would remove the signs you mention entirely and replace them with simply a sign warning of the presence of a crosswalk (if there is not one already) or nothing (if there is). Anyone who needs a sign to remind them that it's necessary to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk shouldn't have a drivers license.

[AlexandriaVA]

Because it's a useless endeavor and a lame attempt to justify victim-blaming.

Furthermore, drivers cannot determine whether or not pedestrians are acting lawful or not.

Can't they determine it simply by noting that they are crossing against a don't walk signal or red light?  Or do you mean from a legal perspective?  If it's that latter than I agree.  My problem is that motorists assume that peds have absolute ROW everywhere and peds also follow the same logic.  A little education never hurt anyone.

Pedestrian could be blind, signal broken, etc. A lot of factors that go into determining "legality" which the driver is not equipped to do on the spot driving at-speed.

How do you, as a driver, even know what the pedestrian signal is...shouldn't you be looking at the road, and not at signals which are perpendicular to your main field-of-view?

[roadman]

At a signalized intersection, pedestrians are supposed to follow the signal indications and do NOT have any special rights.  Adding signs reminding drivers to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks at these intersections only serves to perpetuate the growing myth among both pedestrians and lawyers that drivers are ALWAYS supposed to yield to pedestrians in the road, regardless of who actually has the legal right of way in a given situation.

[NE2]

drivers are ALWAYS supposed to yield to pedestrians in the road

True.

[ilpt4u]

At a signalized intersection, pedestrians are supposed to follow the signal indications and do NOT have any special rights.  Adding signs reminding drivers to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks at these intersections only serves to perpetuate the growing myth among both pedestrians and lawyers that drivers are ALWAYS supposed to yield to pedestrians in the road, regardless of who actually has the legal right of way in a given situation.

I would not say that a pedestrian has a legal right to the crosswalk against a Red/Don't Walk signal or against the instruction of a Crossing Guard, etc. I don't think anyone here is implying they do

But a Motor Vehicle Operator does not have the right to hit a pedestrian who is/may be violating the law/failing to Yield. Jay Walking is not punishable by injury/death, and another individual at the intersection certainly should not act as Arresting Officer, Judge, Jury, and Executioner!

This is pretty basic Week 1 Drivers Ed type stuff, people. Just like at a 4-way stop, where if a Fellow Driver does not properly yield in proper order, one is to yield the right of way to that driver that is, for lack of a better word, "taking" the right of way

Law Enforcement Officers can ticket as appropriate for Jay Walking. And this is coming from a person who has received a Jay Walking Citation...

[roadman]

I would not say that a pedestrian has a legal right to the crosswalk against a Red/Don't Walk signal or against the instruction of a Crossing Guard, etc.

But a Motor Vehicle Driver does not have the right to hit a pedestrian who is/may be violating the law/failing to Yield.

True enough.  But if that motor vehicle driver happens to hit a pedestrian who is violating the law, then the fault for the crash should lie squarely with the pedestrian, and not the driver.

[ilpt4u]

And more locally for me in Southern IL, we actually do have an intersection, signed to Yield to Pedestrians, because there is a (relatively common) conflicting movement signal

T-intersection, and Right Turning Traffic has a Green Ball at the same time the Pedestrian Crosswalk has the "Walk" signal, and that is the Crosswalk that Right Turning Traffic from the "T" road crosses

According to Signal, both Driver and Pedestrian have the right of way, but Signage does help to remind Drivers that Pedestrians in the Crosswalk still have the Right of Way over Drivers in this instance, and the sign reminds Drivers to check for Pedestrians instead of mindlessly turning on a Green Ball

[roadman]

drivers are ALWAYS supposed to yield to pedestrians in the road

True.

Huh?  Show me the law or statute that states this is the case.

[kalvado]

drivers are ALWAYS supposed to yield to pedestrians in the road

True.

I would put it differently.
No sane person, driver or not,  would want to be involved in injuring or killing another person - until that is done to avoid bigger evil.  Jaywalking is definitely a lesser evil compared to injury  or death...
And this statement is a HUGE can of worms to deal with.
This statement relies on simple humanity (which goes against GOP agenda)  and common sense (against current court practices). Personal responsibility, which would also help, is clearly the concept not fitting democratic agenda.
Oh, and I heard many times that modern americans are incapable of properly using underground crosswalks, which were generally usable 50 years ago
Since I cannot do anything about all that, may I have your biggest bag of popcorn, please?

[english si]

The existence of any such signs at all is a great example of the inane practice we have in this country of designing traffic control assuming no one knows how to drive.

If you want a simple reason why the death rate on American roads are so much higher than Europe's - it's this. There's no encouragement to learn to drive properly, nor to disagree with what is on the signs is perfectly safe (boy who cried wolf issue).

It's also the reason why the UK hasn't seen road fatalities fall as quickly as elsewhere in Europe this century, as we move towards this nannying notion in the interests of safety. We were considerably ahead of the other countries, and now have been overtaken by some.

Oh, and I heard many times that modern americans are incapable of properly using underground crosswalks, which were generally usable 50 years ago

Not just America.

[SectorZ]

In a car accident, from a legal and corresponding insurance perspective, a driver does have a near absolute duty to yield right of way in a crosswalk, provided the person is not walking with a "don't walk" signal. If a pedestrian is jaywalking, the driver only has a duty to avoid hitting them if possible, not a duty to yield right of way.

Failing to yield right of way makes you at fault in an accident (barring unusual mitigating circumstances). This goes for a pedestrian, bike, another car, etc.

Striking a pedestrian who jaywalks is no different than striking a car that runs a stop sign. Unless you sped up, willfully chose not to avoid an impact that was possible to avoid, or were doing something dumb like excessively speeding or high/drunk, you're not going to be at fault.

[kalvado]

In a car accident, from a legal and corresponding insurance perspective, a driver does have a near absolute duty to yield right of way in a crosswalk, provided the person is not walking with a "don't walk" signal. If a pedestrian is jaywalking, the driver only has a duty to avoid hitting them if possible, not a duty to yield right of way.

Failing to yield right of way makes you at fault in an accident (barring unusual mitigating circumstances). This goes for a pedestrian, bike, another car, etc.

Striking a pedestrian who jaywalks is no different than striking a car that runs a stop sign. Unless you sped up, willfully chose not to avoid an impact that was possible to avoid, or were doing something dumb like excessively speeding or high/drunk, you're not going to be at fault.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe driver's insurance still covers cost of accident - mainly medical bills ($$$); and insurance bills would reflect those payments for years to come. So even not being at fault, driver still pays...

[US71]

drivers are ALWAYS supposed to yield to pedestrians in the road

True.

Huh?  Show me the law or statute that states this is the case.

What if they are on the road illegally (such as crossing an Interstate highway)?

[epzik8]

Sounds acceptable

[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.

[NE2]

drivers are ALWAYS supposed to yield to pedestrians in the road

True.

You obviously can't hit a ped already in the road,

Thanks for the agreement.

[SectorZ]

In a car accident, from a legal and corresponding insurance perspective, a driver does have a near absolute duty to yield right of way in a crosswalk, provided the person is not walking with a "don't walk" signal. If a pedestrian is jaywalking, the driver only has a duty to avoid hitting them if possible, not a duty to yield right of way.

Failing to yield right of way makes you at fault in an accident (barring unusual mitigating circumstances). This goes for a pedestrian, bike, another car, etc.

Striking a pedestrian who jaywalks is no different than striking a car that runs a stop sign. Unless you sped up, willfully chose not to avoid an impact that was possible to avoid, or were doing something dumb like excessively speeding or high/drunk, you're not going to be at fault.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe driver's insurance still covers cost of accident - mainly medical bills ($$$); and insurance bills would reflect those payments for years to come. So even not being at fault, driver still pays...

Yes, Med Pay coverage (which is optional to carry) or PIP in states that have PIP (my state is one) would cover regardless of fault. If they don't have med pay, and there is no liability on the driver, then there would be no payout. Insurance premiums don't go up for med pay/PIP payouts in a not-at-fault accident. Also, if the pedestrian has their own auto insurance, their own PIP and med pay could cover as well, and in fact both pedestrian and driver's insurance could combine the coverage available if need be.

[SSOWorld]

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.

[kalvado]

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.

While that may very well be the practical case, I have hard time believing that is written onto the law.

[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.

[jeffandnicole]

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.