So apparently this NJ change is pretty old (see http://www.nj.gov/oag/hts/pedestrian.html), but what is the point in changing the signs from yield to stop for pedestrians? I mean, it hardly carries the same meaning as the difference between a regular yield sign and stop sign. Are they saying the old signs simply meant "don't hit a person in the crosswalk"? I don't think you need a sign, or a crosswalk for that matter, to follow that rule. So they must have meant "if someone is crossing or waiting to cross and you would get in the way, stop and let them cross". So do the new signs mean you have to stop (or stay stopped) for a pedestrian even if you are no longer in the way or never were in the first place (such as when the pedestrian moved on to the next lane)? That doesn't seem reasonable either. So what's the difference?
I don't think there's any appreciable difference between "YIELD TO" and "STOP FOR" in the context of pedestrians in a crosswalk.
Think about what a yield sign means in terms of a road intersection. It basically says: "allow others to use the right of way, reducing your speed as necessary–even coming to a full stop if required" . That same intersection marked with a stop sign means "you must come to a full stop regardless of whether cross traffic is present or not" . Obviously the law doesn't force you to stop at vacant crosswalks.
So "yield" is much more appropriate. I could speculate that since yield is meaningless to most motorists, the decision was made to use wording that sounded stronger.
My impression is that anywhere that would put in those supplemental signs indicates crosswalks that do get significant number of crossings and that drivers should be on the lookout for peds. I definitely give more caution when I see those yellow flags in the median than I do at a typical unsignalized marked crosswalk.
Those signs also have the nice effect of making a mid-block crosswalk more visible. I prefer yield rather than stop though; stop gives the impression that one should stop if there's a pedestrian anywhere in the crosswalk, even if there would be no conflict to proceeding (ex: only just started walking on other side of road when you're practically on top of the crosswalk, already passed your lane, etc.).
I think the difference lies in how much room you have to give a pedestrian. With 'Stop for', you have to stop if the pedestrian is within 1 lane of your lane (ie: if crossing a 2 lane road, you must stop if the ped is in the road. If you're in the far right lane of a 4 lane roadway, you must stop if the ped is in your lane or the lane next to you). 'Yield To' simply means if the pedestrian is within your lane.
I know...it doesn't seem to make much sense, but that's the best I could figure out. If I see a pedestrian, I tend to slow down far back anyway so I don't have to come to a stop if I don't need to.
I know Virginia's MUTCD supplement prohibits the "Stop for" sign because state law requires drivers to yield to pedestrians, not to stop for them. I understand it to work somewhat differently from what jeffandnicole states–the way I understand it is that you don't have to stop if your continued movement won't interfere with the pedestrian's right-of-way, but insofar as I know Virginia has no hard-and-fast rule about where you draw the line on that. I wouldn't want to have to be the person trying to argue either side of a failure-to-yield ticket, though I've never heard of anyone being ticketed for it either.
Compare to, say, California, where from what I've seen on Stanley Roberts's program the rule appears to be that if a pedestrian has set even one foot in the crosswalk, you must stop, even though you're four lanes away. (I'm sure the rule is more complicated than that.)
Yield is usually used in NY but stop appears in many places, particularly private businesses.
Illinois became a "Stop for" state back in 2010.
I believe Michigan leaves it up to the locals on which version is used.
I'm honestly not sure what Indiana has adopted. I've yet to see a "stop/yield to pedestrians in crosswalk" sign on any public roadway in the Northwest district. The only signs I know of are at the South Lake Mall in Merrilville, IN, which is private property.
Florida is a stop for state, at least in district 5 anyway. "stop for peds" signs are everywhere down here on both state and county highways.
Edit: I was wrong, FL is a stop for state. I was more than likely thinking of somewhere else.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 09, 2015, 01:13:15 PM
Compare to, say, California, where from what I've seen on Stanley Roberts's program the rule appears to be that if a pedestrian has set even one foot in the crosswalk, you must stop, even though you're four lanes away. (I'm sure the rule is more complicated than that.)
This exact thing happened to me here in Rochester NY - I got pulled over for not stopping for a pedestrian in a crosswalk who was in the far opposite parking lane, and I was in the far right driving lane of a 4-lane street, so, more than 3 driving lanes away. I ended up with just a warning. It was a mid-block crosswalk with a normal diamond sign, but not the in-street sign.
Quote from: jemacedo9 on October 10, 2015, 07:50:26 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 09, 2015, 01:13:15 PM
Compare to, say, California, where from what I've seen on Stanley Roberts's program the rule appears to be that if a pedestrian has set even one foot in the crosswalk, you must stop, even though you're four lanes away. (I'm sure the rule is more complicated than that.)
This exact thing happened to me here in Rochester NY - I got pulled over for not stopping for a pedestrian in a crosswalk who was in the far opposite parking lane, and I was in the far right driving lane of a 4-lane street, so, more than 3 driving lanes away. I ended up with just a warning. It was a mid-block crosswalk with a normal diamond sign, but not the in-street sign.
Isn't NY a "your half of the road" state? Or am I thinking of PA?
Washington State's MUTCD revision (http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=468-95-033) does not permit the "YIELD TO..." signs. All the equivalent signs all have the stop sign on them, in place of the yield sign:
Quote from: WAC 468-95-033
Delete signs R1-5, R1-5a, R1-6, and R1-9 from MUTCD Figure 2B-2...
When the breakaway bollards first started showing up (the kind that are placed in the center of the roadway), I seem to remember some of them saying "YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS", but they were replaced with "STOP FOR PEDESTRIANS" once Washington's MUTCD supplement came out in support of the "STOP" versions (also, in support of
the law, which indicates that one must stop for pedestrians, not merely just yield the right of way (despite the two being, in effect, the same).
Massachusetts is a "yield to" state, but many towns ignore that state law and put up "stop for" signs.
Quote from: spooky on October 13, 2015, 07:16:39 AM
Massachusetts is a "yield to" state, but many towns ignore that state law and put up "stop for" signs.
This makes me curious how the 10-foot rule is applied to the "stop for" signs. In Massachusetts, one may ignore a pedestrian in the opposite side of the road if that pedestrian is more than 10 feet from one's car.
In Italy (Rome specifically), I noticed that drivers would slow down for you but never actually stop - you simply had to start crossing the street and trust that the oncoming cars would slow down enough to let you go and then keep on going. In Germany, cars would come to a complete stop.
I don't trust American drivers nearly as much due to more distractions in the car (i.e. eating and drinking, and the legalized use of cell phones), so I won't go until I see the car at or very close to a complete stop.
Quote from: Rothman on October 13, 2015, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 13, 2015, 10:10:35 AM
(i.e. and the legalized use of cell phones)
Say what?
I assume he means hands free. But the only country where that's illegal is Japan.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 13, 2015, 03:18:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 13, 2015, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 13, 2015, 10:10:35 AM
(i.e. and the legalized use of cell phones)
Say what?
I assume he means hands free. But the only country where that's illegal is Japan.
I assumed he meant just the opposite, that in the US it's generally not illegal to use a handheld phone.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 13, 2015, 04:04:55 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 13, 2015, 03:18:36 PM
Quote from: Rothman on October 13, 2015, 12:13:21 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 13, 2015, 10:10:35 AM
(i.e. and the legalized use of cell phones)
Say what?
I assume he means hands free. But the only country where that's illegal is Japan.
I assumed he meant just the opposite, that in the US it's generally not illegal to use a handheld phone.
This was my assumption as well.
It's legal to hold a phone while driving in Massachusetts only when using it for an actual call, but I don't know how common it is nationally. It's illegal in most nearby states, and probably will be here soon as well.
I step into moving traffic only really cautiously, but it's almost necessary in places to instigate a slowdown, even in very marked crosswalks.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 13, 2015, 04:57:35 PM
.... It's illegal in most nearby states, and probably will be here soon as well.
....
I doubt it'll matter. It's illegal in DC and Maryland and both jurisdictions' laws are widely ignored. The real benefit of that law is that if you're in a wreck and the other person was illegally using a phone, the fact that said use is banned may be persuasive evidence of the standard of care in a negligence case. But if you're a pedestrian, that may be small comfort.
My point was that using a cell phone, hands-free or not, legal or illegal, makes you a more distracted driver than if you weren't. I don't think anyone can deny that.
And to preemptively answer people's inevitable counter points, yes, I believe that talking, radio, food, children, etc are all also distractions to driving. Ideally, people will minimize as many of those distractions as possible while operating heavy and fast machinery, as F=M*A
Quote from: empirestate on October 10, 2015, 10:11:44 AM
Isn't NY a "your half of the road" state? Or am I thinking of PA?
We were until a few years ago. Now we're an "anywhere in the crosswalk" state. Judging by what I see day to day, I'd say the pedestrians know this, but the drivers don't :)
(I think Ontario requires a complete stop if someone on the sidewalk appears to be thinking about stepping toward the crosswalk.)
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 13, 2015, 07:31:01 PM
My point was that using a cell phone, hands-free or not, legal or illegal, makes you a more distracted driver than if you weren't. I don't think anyone can deny that.
And to preemptively answer people's inevitable counter points, yes, I believe that talking, radio, food, children, etc are all also distractions to driving. Ideally, people will minimize as many of those distractions as possible while operating heavy and fast machinery, as F=M*A
Of course, thats not even necessarily true. When I use an app designed to help drive, like Waze, it alerts me to hazards on the road, can tell me what every lane does and exactly where I need to turn so I don't need to pay attention to the street sign names, I can focus much more on the roadway and thus the pedestrians at the intersection instead of the often difficult to find or read blade sign.
QuoteOf course, thats not even necessarily true. When I use an app designed to help drive, like Waze, it alerts me to hazards on the road, can tell me what every lane does and exactly where I need to turn so I don't need to pay attention to the street sign names, I can focus much more on the roadway and thus the pedestrians at the intersection instead of the often difficult to find or read blade sign.
However, you're still distracted, as your eyes are still coming off the road to look at your Waze app. So Alexandria's point is still valid.
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 14, 2015, 04:58:40 AM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 13, 2015, 07:31:01 PM
My point was that using a cell phone, hands-free or not, legal or illegal, makes you a more distracted driver than if you weren't. I don't think anyone can deny that.
And to preemptively answer people's inevitable counter points, yes, I believe that talking, radio, food, children, etc are all also distractions to driving. Ideally, people will minimize as many of those distractions as possible while operating heavy and fast machinery, as F=M*A
Of course, thats not even necessarily true. When I use an app designed to help drive, like Waze, it alerts me to hazards on the road, can tell me what every lane does and exactly where I need to turn so I don't need to pay attention to the street sign names, I can focus much more on the roadway and thus the pedestrians at the intersection instead of the often difficult to find or read blade sign.
Sounds like you're focusing more on the app to tell you the obvious. How do all those other people manage to avoid hazards and pedestrians?
Quote from: Sam on October 13, 2015, 11:27:49 PM
Quote from: empirestate on October 10, 2015, 10:11:44 AM
Isn't NY a "your half of the road" state? Or am I thinking of PA?
We were until a few years ago. Now we're an "anywhere in the crosswalk" state. Judging by what I see day to day, I'd say the pedestrians know this, but the drivers don't :)
(I think Ontario requires a complete stop if someone on the sidewalk appears to be thinking about stepping toward the crosswalk.)
Yeesh. What's the point of further inconveniencing drivers by making them wait for no reason? You can't hit the pedestrian if he's not in your lane, it's physically impossible. When I'm a pedestrian, I don't want drivers to have to wait on me for no reason, but to minimize their inconvenience as much as possible. Am I just an oddball?
Quote from: Sam on October 13, 2015, 11:27:49 PM
Quote from: empirestate on October 10, 2015, 10:11:44 AM
Isn't NY a "your half of the road" state? Or am I thinking of PA?
We were until a few years ago. Now we're an "anywhere in the crosswalk" state. Judging by what I see day to day, I'd say the pedestrians know this, but the drivers don't :)
Downtown Morristown, NJ has those kinds of pedestrians too. They cross without even looking. A friend used to say they have a tremendous faith in God.
I've noticed that around Boston, too. Maybe it's so much part of the culture that the peds are certain they'll be stopped for. I've also seen Boston drivers pull out very close in front of oncoming cars using the pedestrian in the crosswalk as a shield.
Quote from: froggie on October 14, 2015, 08:47:14 AM
QuoteOf course, thats not even necessarily true. When I use an app designed to help drive, like Waze, it alerts me to hazards on the road, can tell me what every lane does and exactly where I need to turn so I don't need to pay attention to the street sign names, I can focus much more on the roadway and thus the pedestrians at the intersection instead of the often difficult to find or read blade sign.
However, you're still distracted, as your eyes are still coming off the road to look at your Waze app. So Alexandria's point is still valid.
By that logic, we should remove the speedometer, gas gauge, and all other instrument panels from the view of the driver because they could glance down at them instead of keeping their eyes on the road.
Quote from: vdeane on October 14, 2015, 01:17:41 PM
Quote from: Sam on October 13, 2015, 11:27:49 PM
Quote from: empirestate on October 10, 2015, 10:11:44 AM
Isn't NY a "your half of the road" state? Or am I thinking of PA?
We were until a few years ago. Now we're an "anywhere in the crosswalk" state.
Yeesh. What's the point of further inconveniencing drivers by making them wait for no reason? You can't hit the pedestrian if he's not in your lane, it's physically impossible. When I'm a pedestrian, I don't want drivers to have to wait on me for no reason, but to minimize their inconvenience as much as possible. Am I just an oddball?
This sounds like something some legislator cooked up in order to look tough and make the law sound more serious, so they could point to it and say "we're taking steps to increase safety!" even if what they're doing accomplishes un cazzo. Politicians are good at that.
Considering that in New York City "yield to pedestrians" frequently means "drive around pedestrians" (i.e. we don't even follow the old rule), this is especially laughable.
Of course, such a rule does make it easier for cops to write tickets since it eliminates any arguments over whether someone was in "your half" of the crosswalk (this can often be ambiguous) by making it not matter. So one could interpret this along the same lines as the law saying you can be fined for texting while driving if you so much as have your phone in your hand for a split second while driving - it shuts down any arguments someone might make that they weren't texting, they were just glancing at the time or something.
My definition of "yield" has always been "as long as everyone else can pretend you don't exist and still not get in an accident, you're good". I'm guessing that most bike/ped advocates don't like that definition and would prefer an inviting, wide open path to attract pedestrians to walk across.
Quote from: vdeane on October 16, 2015, 12:58:18 PM
My definition of "yield" has always been "as long as everyone else can pretend you don't exist and still not get in an accident, you're good". I'm guessing that most bike/ped advocates don't like that definition and would prefer an inviting, wide open path to attract pedestrians to walk across.
Fir drivers, in my experience, both "yield" and "stop" mean "there is traffic ahead that doesn't expect you to be there, so it's your job to ensure that nothing bad happens". The only difference is that "yield" tends to be used at merges, while "stop" tends to be used at cross streets. Now that does mean that you're more likely to need to actually stop at a stop sign vs a yield sign because cross traffic is harder to see than merging traffic, but not because it's a stop sign. (4-way stop signs mean "we're too cheap to put up a traffic light, so you figure it out on your own". I hate those. Why not just assign right of way at random to one of the roads? I mean if it doesn't warrant a signal, there is probably not enough traffic to cause backups in the non-right-of-way direction, and even if it were, at least now the backups are only on one street instead of two). So I don't think it makes a difference where crosswalks are concerned.
Yield requires you to let others go first if the conflicting traffic isn't clear. Stop means that you're supposed to stop every time regardless. Thus "yield to pedestrian" means "allow them to cross without being hit", while "stop for pedestrian" means "you must stop if the pedestrian is in the crosswalk or thinking about crossing regardless of whether you can safely go or not".
Quote from: bzakharin on October 19, 2015, 10:09:28 AM
[Now that does mean that you're more likely to need to actually stop at a stop sign vs a yield sign because cross traffic is harder to see than merging traffic...
Do you ever NOT stop at a stop sign? For your sake and the safety of those around you, I certainly hope the answer is "no" .
Quote4-way stop signs mean "we're too cheap to put up a traffic light, so you figure it out on your own". I hate those
In most Massachusetts communities, 4-way stop signs mean "We think traffic is going too fast, but a permanent reduction in the speed limit can't be justified."
Four-way stop means that the local traffic planners haven't gotten to roundabout chapters in their textbooks.
Seriously...does any other part of the world use four-way stops as much as the US does? I've never seen a single one in Europe.
Quote from: briantroutman on October 19, 2015, 01:25:00 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 19, 2015, 10:09:28 AM
[Now that does mean that you're more likely to need to actually stop at a stop sign vs a yield sign because cross traffic is harder to see than merging traffic...
Do you ever NOT stop at a stop sign? For your sake and the safety of those around you, I certainly hope the answer is "no" .
Read his comment again. He questioned the NEED to stop at a stop sign. We've all experienced many instances where the only reason to stop at the stop sign is because the sign says you have to do so. In other words, because of the lack of other traffic there is no "need" to stop.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 19, 2015, 02:49:41 PM
Four-way stop means that the local traffic planners haven't gotten to roundabout chapters in their textbooks.
Seriously...does any other part of the world use four-way stops as much as the US does? I've never seen a single one in Europe.
I found the European approach to be a refreshing change from the American approach. The American approach says "you might have to come to a stop at some point, so we'll require you to stop every time just in case because we don't trust you to yield when necessary." The European approach says "there's no reason to require you to stop except when there's someone else to whom you have to yield, and we presume that you know the law and will follow it."
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 19, 2015, 02:49:41 PM
Four-way stop means that the local traffic planners haven't gotten to roundabout chapters in their textbooks.
Seriously...does any other part of the world use four-way stops as much as the US does? I've never seen a single one in Europe.
There are a few examples, but definitely not as many. I think other parts of the world take traffic control a little more seriously than we do. Lots of four-way stops only exist to slow traffic. Some other countries (which are concerned about speed) use chicanes, speed tables, and speed cameras to complete that task. As for stop signs in general, 1995hoo took the words right out of my mouth...it really does come down to a matter of trust.
I would agree that a roundabout is superior to a four-way stop, but there are ROW restrictions on occasion which may prevent even a mini-roundabout from being installed. I prefer signals to four-way stops in those cases, but sometimes there isn't the money for that.
I guess it's another case of American exceptionalism, in that American motorists are exceptionally bad at making judgements calls (yielding on roundabounts, yielding to pedestrians, etc).
I can certainly think of some urban areas where mini-roundabouts would be undesirable due to poor sight lines around the corners due to parked cars. If parking is tight such that it's a problem to remove spaces to improve sight lines for a roundabout, I can see why a four-way stop is better in those cases. At smaller side street intersections I'd rather deal with a four-way stop than a traffic light because I find they're usually (not always, just usually) faster to get through compared to waiting for a light that probably won't be on a trip.
Quote from: 1995hoo on October 19, 2015, 05:08:32 PM
I can certainly think of some urban areas where mini-roundabouts would be undesirable due to poor sight lines around the corners due to parked cars. If parking is tight such that it's a problem to remove spaces to improve sight lines for a roundabout, I can see why a four-way stop is better in those cases. At smaller side street intersections I'd rather deal with a four-way stop than a traffic light because I find they're usually (not always, just usually) faster to get through compared to waiting for a light that probably won't be on a trip.
I'm just fundamentally opposed to four-way stops in general, for two reasons:
1) They're usually installed because the side street has too much approaching traffic, or
2) They're installed to slow traffic down
Installing a four-way stop may assist in the flow of the secondary street, but it severely exacerbates the traffic flow on the primary road. If traffic on the secondary street has trouble pulling out due to heavy traffic on the primary road, it means the primary road has a fairly steady stream of vehicles. To then make each of those vehicles along the primary road stop for a stop sign is just outrageous...if you thought traffic was bad before the stop sign, just wait until afterwards, when every vehicle has to stop, not just those along the secondary street. If traffic along the side street has a regular line of 10 to 20 cars, then a signal should be installed. That way, sometimes you'll have to stop and wait, but other times you'll be able to proceed without any stopping, just like before.
Tl;dr: Secondary streets are simply not important in the big picture of traffic flow. I know that's a broad statement, but I'm fairly certain I can defend it if necessary.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on October 19, 2015, 02:59:11 PM
I guess it's another case of American exceptionalism, in that American motorists are exceptionally bad at making judgements calls (yielding on roundabounts, yielding to pedestrians, etc).
Or, to put it another way, we're exceptionally good at making judgment calls; the judgment is just more likely to fall in our own favor. ;-)
Quote from: Sam on October 13, 2015, 11:27:49 PM
(I think Ontario requires a complete stop if someone on the sidewalk appears to be thinking about stepping toward the crosswalk.)
No, that is not the case at all.
- At intersection - based on the control at that intersection (signals/stop/yield/free flow)
- Mid-block pedestrian signal - per the signal displayed, legally the same as an intersection signal
- Mid-block pedestrian crossover (https://goo.gl/maps/zUavF37e5wR2) - somewhat ambiguous, which is why they're being phased out. Driver is to stop for the ped, peds should activate the signals. Right now, driver may proceed when their half of the roadway is clear, will be changing to full width soon.
- Unsignalized mid-block crosswalk - pedestrians yield to traffic
Does anyone have any insight on what the point is on stopping if the pedestrian is anywhere in the crosswalk rather than just somewhere where you might hit them? It appears to just be a way to further inconvenience drivers in a bid to coax them out of their cars.
Quote from: vdeane on October 23, 2015, 12:45:07 PM
Does anyone have any insight on what the point is on stopping if the pedestrian is anywhere in the crosswalk rather than just somewhere where you might hit them? It appears to just be a way to further inconvenience drivers in a bid to coax them out of their cars.
If you're really curious, it's because drivers are expected to drive predictably and responsibly, and pedestrians are not. Drivers are more-or-less adult, with training behind them. Pedestrians may be children or no longer mentally able to drive. They may change from a walk to a run or change directions in the middle of the street. As a driver it's not only your job to miss them but also not to threaten them. Try to be glad that you are able to drive rather than upset because you might have to wait a few seconds for someone who doesn't have that option.
If priority is a matter of predictability, trains should be required to yield to cars. Obviously that's insane, but train:car as car:pedestrian. Both of the former cannot stop as quickly as the latter, but for some reason, cars have to yield to pedestrians in most cases, despite taking much longer to stop, and being far less maneuverable (the reason we are required to yield to trains in the first place).
Now, it's established that you cannot knowingly run someone down, and pedestrians usually don't have the right of way at crossings where they are facing a red hand. But I do feel for drivers in places where pedestrians always have the ROW, even in scenarios where the car has a green light. That just seems nutty.
In Milledgeville, GA where we have three colleges, the signs say "stop" for pedestrians in red. I use one every day to get to my office at Georgia Military College. It is amazing the number of people who do not stop for pedestrians.
Quote from: roadman on October 19, 2015, 01:46:50 PM
Quote4-way stop signs mean "we're too cheap to put up a traffic light, so you figure it out on your own". I hate those
In most Massachusetts communities, 4-way stop signs mean "We think traffic is going too fast, but a permanent reduction in the speed limit can't be justified."
In most Massachusetts communities, 4-way stop signs mean "Screw this, I'm going when the guy in front of me goes."
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2015, 05:21:54 PM
If priority is a matter of predictability, trains should be required to yield to cars. Obviously that's insane, but train:car as car:pedestrian. Both of the former cannot stop as quickly as the latter, but for some reason, cars have to yield to pedestrians in most cases, despite taking much longer to stop, and being far less maneuverable (the reason we are required to yield to trains in the first place).
Now, it's established that you cannot knowingly run someone down, and pedestrians usually don't have the right of way at crossings where they are facing a red hand. But I do feel for drivers in places where pedestrians always have the ROW, even in scenarios where the car has a green light. That just seems nutty.
I'd think of it in terms of fundamental right-of-way. On a public thoroughfare–road, street, highway, whatever–people have a right of way, a freedom of passage along that thoroughfare and access to the properties that abut it. Fundamentally, a person using this right of way takes the form a pedestrian; that's just a person.
Now, some people have the privilege of owning or otherwise having access to a vehicle that can expedite their passage along that right of way; in fact, so many people have this privilege that many thoroughfares are segregated into different areas for different types of vehicles, or for those without a vehicle, and rules are enacted establishing the movement of those vehicles. But the underlying freedom of passage is vested in the person, not the vehicle, and those with the privilege of having a vehicle undertake the responsibility of maneuvering it safely amongst those other persons exercising their right of way.
The difference with trains is that a railroad is a dedicated right-of-way for train travel. Persons do not have a right-of-way on railroads, nor do their vehicles, so trains have the priority. And, yes, for practical reasons trains are given priority where the intersect public rights-of-way for reasons of maneuvering.
Quote from: kkt on October 23, 2015, 04:53:51 PM
If you're really curious, it's because drivers are expected to drive predictably and responsibly, and pedestrians are not. Drivers are more-or-less adult, with training behind them. Pedestrians may be children or no longer mentally able to drive. They may change from a walk to a run or change directions in the middle of the street. As a driver it's not only your job to miss them but also not to threaten them. Try to be glad that you are able to drive rather than upset because you might have to wait a few seconds for someone who doesn't have that option.
I'd prefer that everybody be predictable. I suppose it's hard for me to relate, being the oddball who was never that unpredictable in the first place. Mom and I always yielded to cars when we walked places and had to cross the road. And I was always mature for my age (in some ways; pretty much anything that tied to intellectual development, including things like "don't run in front of a car without looking", I was always at least 5 years ahead of everyone else; I could read road signs when I was 4, and maybe even back to infancy, if Mom's stories are to be taken at face value - I could always tell if we went a different way home).
Quote from: Sam on October 13, 2015, 11:27:49 PM
We were until a few years ago. Now we're an "anywhere in the crosswalk" state.
Well, I'm happy to say I was wrong about that. New York's Vehicle and Traffic Law now says "yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be" with no mention of where in the crosswalk.
http://ypdcrime.com/vt/article27.htm
empirestate gets it right on Right-of-Way - the right vested in the person, not the vehicle. You can keep a route as a right of way, but ban access that uses certain vehicles (it is a bit harder to ban pedestrians though its perfectly do-able via a legal order): Footpaths (and sidewalks) by default do not allow cycles or motor vehicles; Bridleways allow horseriding and cycling as well as pedestrians, but not motor vehicles, etc.
Quote from: empirestate on October 23, 2015, 11:04:15 PMThe difference with trains is that a railroad is a dedicated right-of-way for train travel. Persons do not have a right-of-way on railroads, nor do their vehicles, so trains have the priority. And, yes, for practical reasons trains are given priority where the intersect public rights-of-way for reasons of maneuvering.
In the UK, plans for motorways before the Special Roads Act (which allows the construction of a public road that isn't a right-of-way) used the legal instruments for creating a light railway to stop the road becoming a right of way. Also, railways are fenced in the UK because of a legal requirement (presumably to make it clear that it's not a right of way)
In England (and Wales, which only relatively recently became a separate legal jurisdiction), private roads/paths have to physically (locked gate) deny access one day every year else, after 25 years, it becomes a right-of-way. There was a fence put up across a gap in a loose hedge (made of trees planted closely together) between a public footpath and the car park of a college near my house. It was challenged on the grounds of breaking the right of way and a new gap was created in a different place as a compromise agreement to avoid a protracted legal fight of "well I remember walking through there 25 years ago", "nonsense, it's only been there 24".
When it comes to crossings, there's a risk if I cross the road on a red man, and the car driver won't automatically get the book thrown at them if I'm run over as I'm not following the Highway Code's advice. However I am not breaking the law by doing it. As such, if I can cross without needing to stop vehicular traffic by pressing the button, I do.