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.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 24, 2017, 11:22:16 PM
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
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.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 24, 2017, 11:28:06 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 24, 2017, 11:31:34 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on September 24, 2017, 11:28:06 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: roadman on September 25, 2017, 10:14:58 AM
drivers are ALWAYS supposed to yield to pedestrians in the road
True.
Quote from: roadman on September 25, 2017, 10:14:58 AM
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...
Quote from: ilpt4u on September 25, 2017, 10:33:03 AM
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.
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
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2017, 10:22:30 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 25, 2017, 10:14:58 AM
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.
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2017, 10:22:30 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 25, 2017, 10:14:58 AM
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?
Quote from: Duke87 on September 24, 2017, 11:43:41 PMThe 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.
Quote from: kalvado on September 25, 2017, 12:03:18 PMOh, 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.
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.
Quote from: SectorZ on September 25, 2017, 01:14:00 PM
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...
Quote from: roadman on September 25, 2017, 12:00:56 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2017, 10:22:30 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 25, 2017, 10:14:58 AM
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)?
Sounds acceptable
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2017, 10:22:30 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 25, 2017, 10:14:58 AM
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.
Quote from: kalvado on September 25, 2017, 01:19:09 PM
Quote from: SectorZ on September 25, 2017, 01:14:00 PM
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.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 25, 2017, 06:32:12 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2017, 10:22:30 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 25, 2017, 10:14:58 AM
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.
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 25, 2017, 07:52:29 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 25, 2017, 06:32:12 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2017, 10:22:30 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 25, 2017, 10:14:58 AM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2017, 09:51:04 PM
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.
Quote from: kalvado on September 25, 2017, 09:56:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2017, 09:51:04 PM
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.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2017, 10:21:53 PM
Quote from: kalvado on September 25, 2017, 09:56:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2017, 09:51:04 PM
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.
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 25, 2017, 07:52:29 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 25, 2017, 06:32:12 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2017, 10:22:30 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 25, 2017, 10:14:58 AM
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.
Quote from: kalvado on September 25, 2017, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2017, 10:21:53 PM
Quote from: kalvado on September 25, 2017, 09:56:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2017, 09:51:04 PM
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.
Quote from: SSOWorld on September 26, 2017, 05:18:03 AM
Quote from: kalvado on September 25, 2017, 10:32:41 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2017, 10:21:53 PM
Quote from: kalvado on September 25, 2017, 09:56:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 25, 2017, 09:51:04 PM
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/arelJKw.png)
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 24, 2017, 11:22:16 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 02, 2017, 03:32:19 PM
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.
Interesting
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.
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.
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2017, 10:01:46 AM
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.
Quote from: bzakharin on October 16, 2017, 10:53:59 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2017, 10:01:46 AM
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.
Quote from: kphoger on October 16, 2017, 01:49:08 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 16, 2017, 10:53:59 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2017, 10:01:46 AM
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.
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 16, 2017, 02:44:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 16, 2017, 01:49:08 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 16, 2017, 10:53:59 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2017, 10:01:46 AM
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).
Quote from: kphoger on October 16, 2017, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: UCFKnights on October 16, 2017, 02:44:50 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 16, 2017, 01:49:08 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on October 16, 2017, 10:53:59 AM
Quote from: kphoger on October 12, 2017, 10:01:46 AM
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.
Quote from: kphoger on October 16, 2017, 01:49:08 PM
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.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 17, 2017, 06:56:42 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 16, 2017, 01:49:08 PM
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.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 25, 2017, 06:32:12 PM
Quote from: NE2 on September 25, 2017, 10:22:30 AM
Quote from: roadman on September 25, 2017, 10:14:58 AM
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.