AARoads Forum

How does your state address school zones?  In particular:

1) Is there is one uniform speed limit in school zones for the whole state, or does it vary depending on where the zone is located.

2) Is a school zone defined in your state as being within a school's property line physically along the road or can they put a school zone on a stretch of road even though the street does not touch school property.

3) Any other oddities/frustrations of your state's school zones?

When I used to live in Ohio ISTR that ALL school zones were 20 MPH, regardless of the type of street it was on.  For example, a 20 MPH school zone on a 25 MPH residential street is not a big deal, but throwing a 25 MPH zone on a busy 55MPH 4-lane divided highway (like US 20/SR 18 between Norwalk & Bellevue, OH) is a little overkill.  Here in Colorado, I've seen school zones as high as 45 MPH on busier, multi-lane highways, which is a little more realistic when you consider that kids would not normally traverse that stretch of highway in the first place.

In Ohio, I have also seen school zones placed on streets where the zone runs between the property lines of the school that touch the street.  In this case, it was a 30-foot wide tract of land where a back service driveway connected the school to the main road.  Again, if a school zone is that short, do you really need to have the school zone there in the first place? 

Do you believe that a school zone should be placed on a section of a street even though the school(s) in question is at least one block away from the street in question?

Quote from: thenetwork on February 04, 2011, 08:57:31 PM
3) Any other oddities/frustrations of your state's school zones?

they exist.  that's frustrating enough. 

schools should not be placed on major arterials.  little residential streets well off the grid are where they belong.

I think the highest speed limit I've seen for a school zone is 55, in Texas (I believe on US-290 west of Austin, but don't quote me on that) where the regular speed limit was 70.

Literally half of the town of Washington, OK is one big school zone. The school campus is at the south end of the city street grid, and everything south of SH-24 is signed with SCHOOL Speed Limit 20 signs. Granted this isn't a big deal, because there's only three blocks between SH-24 and the school, and the roads are terrible enough (and the stop signs spaced closely enough) you really wouldn't want to do much more than 20 MPH anyway.

By experience in Québec...

School zones are 30 km/h (20 mph) on all streets, 50 km/h (30 mph) on numbered roads. The slow zone may extend on a few metres around the school and perhaps on nearby streets.

30 km/h limits can also be seen around parks and hospitals, and in residential areas, but they are obviously not designated as school zones.

Missouri - schools zones generally vary by city or county, anywhere from 24/7/365 at 15 mph to at least 35 mph.  Nowadays one may need to be wary of cash hungry cities putting speed cameras in these zones.

Iowa - Seems to be some variance, lowest I can recall is 20.  Iowa also has a 55 mph when flashing school zone on the Avenue of the Saints (regular speed is 65).  IMHO the latter is example of poor design of a new alignment expressway.

Illinois - Generally seems to be 20 mph but "when children are present," even on major arterials.  The "when present" is mildly irritating - do I have to creep along when the kids are not walking along the road, but present on the school playground behind a fence?  It may sound like an absurd question, but I'm sure there are those Bel Ridge and New Rome type cities that might take advantage of this.  Illinois will also likely see a school speed zone on the new US 67 expressway near Delhi (between Jerseyville and Godfrey).

Nebraska - At least in Lincoln it was 25 mph when flashing, even on major arterials.  It seemed to be a short enough period that the signs were flashing that it was not too bad.

In Australia, School Zones are marked with a fluro yellow sign with the applicable times of day (8-9:30 am, 2:30-4pm) and sometimes with a flashing 40 km/h (25mph) sign

Most school zones I've encountered in VA have 25mph speed limits, or 35mph ones when the school is on a high-speed arterial, although there are exceptions to this - a school on US 250 in Henrico County lacks a school zone, and a high school on Parham Road nearby has a 25mph zone for some strange reason. The speed limit is usually 45, and this results in crushing backups when the school zone speed limit is in effect (Parham Road is probably the most important non-state-maintained road in the Richmond metro area, outside of the city limits).

However, a very heavily traveled stretch of US 33 (speed limit 55) recently got a 45mph school zone when a new high school opened in northern Henrico County. I honestly don't understand why there's a school zone to begin with as the school was built far enough away from the road that speed limits on US 33 shouldn't be an issue.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4128%2F4984863968_9abd22007b_z.jpg&hash=ec60f2b9a8c281f33d1bf8533416a104d5f09a8a) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4984863968/)
School Zone: 45 MPH? (http://www.flickr.com/photos/coredesatchikai/4984863968/) by Will Weaver (http://www.flickr.com/people/coredesatchikai/), on Flickr

Quote from: thenetwork on February 04, 2011, 08:57:31 PM
When I used to live in Ohio ISTR that ALL school zones were 20 MPH, regardless of the type of street it was on.  For example, a 20 MPH school zone on a 25 MPH residential street is not a big deal, but throwing a 25 MPH zone on a busy 55MPH 4-lane divided highway (like US 20/SR 18 between Norwalk & Bellevue, OH) is a little overkill.  Here in Colorado, I've seen school zones as high as 45 MPH on busier, multi-lane highways, which is a little more realistic when you consider that kids would not normally traverse that stretch of highway in the first place.

I know this is probably slightly off topic and I might have stated this in another topic awhile back but for some reason back when I took my driver's test my road instructor was saying that the speed limit in school zones in VA was never any higher than 35 mph even when the lights were not flashing.  In fact, he was talking about how he wanted to move a speed limit sign on VA 106 right before an elementary school past the school because the speed limit was 50.  Looking back on it I feel like I should have failed that test because he was such an idiot. 

Quote from: 74/171FAN on February 04, 2011, 11:38:10 PM
I know this is probably slightly off topic and I might have stated this in another topic awhile back but for some reason back when I took my driver's test my road instructor was saying that the speed limit in school zones in VA was never any higher than 35 mph even when the lights were not flashing.  In fact, he was talking about how he wanted to move a speed limit sign on VA 106 right before an elementary school past the school because the speed limit was 50.  Looking back on it I feel like I should have failed that test because he was such an idiot. 

Nothing any driver instructor told me was correct... I heard something similar, which is that school zones are never higher than 25 and it is in effect 24/7, even when the lights are not flashing. Of course there's a local 45 school zone, and several 30 and 35 zones. And drivers tend to disregard them, especially now that they changed school hours but didn't change the school zone times, so the zones are in effect when there are no kids nearby, and aren't when schools let out. For example, my high school now gets out at 3:09, but used to get out at 2:39. The school zone is still in effect from 2:30 to 3:15, so 5 minutes after school lets out the school zone ends, and it's in effect for 39 minutes before. It and several others cause tremendous backups.

School zones in Virginia are enforced inconsistently, and often incorrectly. My ex-girlfriend was once pulled over by an officer for going 40mph in a school zone...when the lights were not flashing...and the speed limit was 40mph. The officer told her maybe three times the lights were flashing, so she should have slowed to 25mph. She was given a warning (but the officer said this was only due to a clean driving record), and ignored any attempt to convince him the lights most certainly were not on.

In Richmond, the police sometimes turn on school zone lights at odd hours in order to create speed traps. I have seen cases of school zone lights flashing as late as 9pm, and there was no activity at the school nearby.

I believe Indiana has just 25 MPH for its school zones, but the times for the limit vary by county. For instance, in Delaware County (Muncie) the signs read WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT while in Hamilton and Marion Counties (Indianapolis) it states that the zone is in effect from 7:30 to 4:30 on all school days. Of course, since all schools in Indianapolis were closed, even with the major roads cleared of ice and snow, I disregarded the school limits today. And then there are other places where the school zones are only in effect from say 7:00 to 9:00 and then 2:00 to 4:00.

But while on this topic, I've always had a peeve against certain school zones. I don't seem to see the reason why I have to slow down during the middle of the school day by a school when I see no children, and when the playground is on the far side of the school some 100 yards from the building. Unless the kid is making a break for it there shouldn't be a reason why they would be near the road. Of course, before and after school is an entirely different matter in which they may be walking to school, and I'll slow down for that. Also, why are there school zones for high schools, aren't those kids old enough to know how to look both ways. Elementary schools I understand why, but for high schools? Anyway, getting off my soapbox now.

Going to high school does not correlate with an increase in common sense. Actually, I've observed it to be quite the opposite.

Anyway, though of an interesting question earlier. How do your respective states address private schools in regards to school zones? Locally the city of Hampton does post school zones for private schools just like any other, but neighboring Newport News does not lower the speed limit, they just post the pentagonal fluorescent yellow school zone sign with flashing lights.

In Louisiana, if it is an educational institution of ANY kind, it gets a school zone. Usually (but not always) the school zone speed is 10 mph less than the speed zone you are in before you get to the school.

School zones shouldn't exist.  If a school is on a street with a high speed limit, they should build a fence, or better yet, educate the kids not to dart out into traffic.  When I was that age I knew enough not to do that.

Regardless, if a pedestrian walks into traffic and gets hit, the accident should be 100% their fault regardless of the conduct of the driver (they could be driving 100 mph in a 25 mph zone and would still be at 0% fault) and pay all related costs out of pocket (no insurance bailout) and face a $1000 fine on top of that for reckless conduct.

Kids are perfectly capable of learning these things, at least if we try rather than just saying "they're only kids; they can learn to be responsible members of society later".

The Nevada Revised Statutes defines two types of school speed areas:

* School Zones: These are school speed areas along a street that is adjacent to any school property. The limits of the school zone start upstream from the actual property line of the school (at varying distances), and sometimes extend through an intersection depending on visibility and crossing conditions. These have a statutory speed limit of 15mph, regardless of roadway classification.

* School Crossing Zones: These are school speed areas away from school property where school children can be reasonably expected to cross a roadway when walking to or from school. A school crossing zone is usually fairly short, encompassing a crosswalk or intersection and extending maybe 500 feet on either side (depending on visibility and other factors, possibly longer on arterials). School Crossing Zones have a statutory speed limit of 25mph, regardless of roadway classification.

This law does result in many arterial roadways being reduced from 35/45 down to 15/25 mph. In many cases, however, public entities have either installed flashing beacons or static signs with specific times that make the speed zones active only when students are walking to/from class. Another trend in the Vegas area for school crossing zones is to use static signs with "when children are present" as the activation time, although this has proven to be somewhat ambiguous.

All educational institutions in Nevada have school zones established by the local public works entity or NDOT. The appropriate agency works with the school district or private school to update times on signs/beacons to make sure they are active at the proper times.

Quote from: deanej on February 05, 2011, 10:59:22 AM
School zones shouldn't exist.  If a school is on a street with a high speed limit, they should build a fence, or better yet, educate the kids not to dart out into traffic.  When I was that age I knew enough not to do that.

Michigan did that when they built Saginaw St through East Lansing (formerly M-78/Temp I-69, now Bus I-69). They put up a tall Jersey Barrier, and built a pedestrian crossing over the street. The speed limit through there is 45mph.

The MUTCD states that school zones should only be right in front of school property or at crosswalks. The City of Highland Village TX grossly violates this rule. They have school zones that stretch for 8 blocks beyond the school in one direction; I think it's because there are no sidewalks. In the other direction there is no need for it whatsoever.(unfortunatly this area is not on streetview)

In many places, the length of the school zones could be drastically reduced if there were only one crosswalk on the major street right in front of the school instead of having 2 or 3. Sidewalks could be placed on both sides of the major street.

Example:http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=33.083451,-97.063651&spn=0,0.043774&z=15&layer=c&cbll=33.083617,-97.063537&panoid=o5jCSXLqke1CM7q9LnCr8Q&cbp=12,234.07,,0,5

This entire street is a school zone. Rediculous.

I've seen school zones at schools in rural areas where no children walk to and from school. It's quite obvious to me that they are there to slow down traffic so vehicles exiting the school can safely enter traffic.

As far as I'm aware, ConnDOT never does anything with school zones. Even if it's on a state highway, the municipality handles it. At which point, it varies. Greenwich and New Canaan post their school zones at 20 (and "slow down in our town" New Canaan has them in effect 24/7!). Stamford and Darien use 25. Stamford notoriously indiscriminately. We have a couple 25 mph school zones on streets already otherwise posted at 25 anyway (the point, then, is?). We also have a 25 mph school zone on a 40 mph four-lane state highway... which nobody slows down for. The Stamford Police, at least, have better things to do than setting up speed traps (like getting paid overtime to babysit construction sites) and so they typically do not.

Our flashers are also interesting in that they know what time of day it is and know what day of the week it is... but do not seem to know what day of the year it is. During the summer, they still flash. Over Christmas, Winter, and Spring breaks, they still flash. On holidays, they still flash.

Quote from: Duke87 on February 06, 2011, 12:41:10 AM
We have a couple 25 mph school zones on streets already otherwise posted at 25 anyway (the point, then, is?).

Sometimes fines double in school zones like they do in construction zones.

Quote from: deanej on February 05, 2011, 10:59:22 AM
Regardless, if a pedestrian walks into traffic and gets hit, the accident should be 100% their fault regardless of the conduct of the driver (they could be driving 100 mph in a 25 mph zone and would still be at 0% fault) and pay all related costs out of pocket (no insurance bailout) and face a $1000 fine on top of that for reckless conduct.

Wow. I hope you hit a kid and go to jail for it. No kidding.

Quote from: Brian556 on February 05, 2011, 09:16:49 PM
In many places, the length of the school zones could be drastically reduced if there were only one crosswalk on the major street right in front of the school instead of having 2 or 3. Sidewalks could be placed on both sides of the major street.

I'd say that the need for multiple crosswalks is because people are too lazy to go out of their way to the crosswalk, but there's quite clearly one right in front of the school there.

By my high school there is a ton of jaywalking to the south; the reason is the crosswalks build for the middle and high schools are to the north (which was stupid, because there's an intersection with a crosswalk right next to the middle school), and the nearest crosswalk to the south is over half a mile away.

QuoteWow. I hope you hit a kid and go to jail for it. No kidding.

You don't think pedestrians should have to take responsibility?  The idea of "look both ways before entering the street" is NOT that hard.  I knew it by the time I was old enough to play outside without an adult hovering near me.  If a kid is old enough to play outside with minimal/no supervision and they don't understand this, either the parent is breaching their responsibility to teach their kids these things, or the kid is too retarded to be allowed to play outside unsupervised.

The idea that pedestrians have right of way no matter what needs to change.  CARS should have the right of way on roads unless a pedestrian is crossing on the crosswalk with a yield to pedestrian sign (not a stop sign - if there's no pedestrian, why should I have to stop?) or a signal of some kind.  This is not to say pedestrians are banned from the roads - if it's clear, feel free to cross wherever you want.  But you shouldn't be making cars slow down/stop just because you couldn't wait another 10 seconds.

In fact, when I'm on the pedestrian side I always feel bad when drivers slow down/stop, creating a delay of 20-30 seconds for themselves, just to save me the 5 second delay I'd have waiting for them to go on their way.

Quote from: deanej on February 06, 2011, 12:20:17 PM
You don't think pedestrians should have to take responsibility?  The idea of "look both ways before entering the street" is NOT that hard.

Motorists are the ones operating heavy machinery that can be deadly. If you hit a pedestrian when you could have easily stopped in time had you been doing the speed limit, it's your fault. That doesn't mean the pedestrian is always in the right; this isn't a zero-sum game.

Quote from: deanej on February 06, 2011, 12:20:17 PMThe idea that pedestrians have right of way no matter what needs to change.  CARS should have the right of way on roads unless a pedestrian is crossing on the crosswalk with a yield to pedestrian sign (not a stop sign - if there's no pedestrian, why should I have to stop?) or a signal of some kind.

That's not the way the law works in Florida, New York, or most likely most other states.

Quote from: http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/web/NewYork/nypedestrians.htmWhen traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right of way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk...

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

(emphasis mine)

Note the reference to an "unmarked crosswalk". This is the place that a crosswalk would be painted in there were one, and it has the same legal status as a marked crosswalk.

Quote from: deanej on February 06, 2011, 12:20:17 PMThis is not to say pedestrians are banned from the roads - if it's clear, feel free to cross wherever you want.  But you shouldn't be making cars slow down/stop just because you couldn't wait another 10 seconds.

In fact, when I'm on the pedestrian side I always feel bad when drivers slow down/stop, creating a delay of 20-30 seconds for themselves, just to save me the 5 second delay I'd have waiting for them to go on their way.

I feel bad when I'm driving and someone turning right in front of me waits when they could go and only force me to slow down a bit. Oh wait, no I don't, because I have right-of-way. Right-of-way laws exist, in part, so traffic (which includes pedestrians) doesn't stand around deciding who can go first.



Here's an interesting post and comments: http://commuteorlando.com/wordpress/2011/02/01/why-did-the-pedestrian-cross-the-street-like-that/

The biggest thing that pisses me off in Ohio is the "during restricted hours" signs.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not out there aiming for kids, but could you be a little less vague?

Recently Columbus PD has been setting up mobile speed cameras inside school zones as well.

Personally, I think questions of who has priority in traffic are arid.  (BTW, on British roads boards, some posters make a huge point of distinguishing between "priority," which is something assigned by traffic signs and the rules of the road and is not absolute, and "right of way," which is absolute and is typically used in railway crossing contexts, where the standard of protection provided for conflicting movements is typically much higher than that provided between cars or between cars and pedestrians.)  Questions of fault are also arid.  You just don't want to be told that you killed a kid, even if you had priority.

I am not sure about the specifics in American state law, but in Britain the state of having priority does not entitle you to run over people who are attempting to execute conflicting movements when you have the ability to carry out evasive actions safely.  The mere fact of having priority is no defense.

Quote from: NE2 on February 06, 2011, 12:39:49 PM
That's not the way the law works in Florida, New York, or most likely most other states.

Hence why I said "should have".  IMO the law needs to be changed.  While it makes sense for residential streets, it makes no sense for arterial roads which is where most of the drivers are.  Residential streets have so little traffic that what the law says concerning them is moot.

Quote
Note the reference to an "unmarked crosswalk". This is the place that a crosswalk would be painted in there were one, and it has the same legal status as a marked crosswalk.

If you're in an unmarked crosswalk, either the road is low-traffic enough that you'll be able to find an opening in the traffic to cross, or there is an engineering deficiency that needs to be addressed.

Quote
I feel bad when I'm driving and someone turning right in front of me waits when they could go and only force me to slow down a bit. Oh wait, no I don't, because I have right-of-way. Right-of-way laws exist, in part, so traffic (which includes pedestrians) doesn't stand around deciding who can go first.

My theory is about minimizing the net delay for society.  Obviously doesn't work in heavier traffic, but that part of my post wasn't about heavy traffic.

Incedentially, that thread you mentioned supports my side:

Quote from: KeriShe crossed legally by yielding to other traffic. If she'd gotten hit, she would have been at fault.

And while I do agree that cars should do what they can to avoid a collision, this does not give peds a licence to walk into traffic whenever they please just because they're a ped.  And given what I've posted, if a car hits a ped when they were in a crosswalk with the walk signal or there was a sign saying to yield to them, the driver should get the book thrown at them.  Maybe police officers should spend more time monitoring crosswalks than sitting in the highway median looking for speeders that are endangering nobody.

And getting back to topic: if a school-age kid can't understand and apply the need to look both ways before entering the street, something is wrong.

Texas: Usually it's 35-20 mph in school zones. Also it's illegal to use cell phones in a school zone, you can get up to a $200 fine for a first time offence. This is enforced in Angelo, driving and talking  doesn't annoy me so much, but the texting and driving is just stupid..

In fact it's illegal in the city of San Antonio, as of October 2010.
BigMatt.

Quote from: deanej on February 06, 2011, 03:19:15 PM
Hence why I said "should have".  IMO the law needs to be changed.  While it makes sense for residential streets, it makes no sense for arterial roads which is where most of the drivers are.  Residential streets have so little traffic that what the law says concerning them is moot.

Due to crappy planning, pedestrians often need to use these arterial roads.

Quote from: deanej on February 06, 2011, 03:19:15 PM
Incedentially, that thread you mentioned supports my side:

Quote from: KeriShe crossed legally by yielding to other traffic. If she'd gotten hit, she would have been at fault.

Not quite - if this was a 25 zone and she stepped out after checking that nobody doing that speed or slightly over was close enough to need to slow, and someone came by at 100 and hit her, that driver would clearly be at fault.

Quote from: deanej on February 06, 2011, 03:19:15 PM
And while I do agree that cars should do what they can to avoid a collision, this does not give peds a licence to walk into traffic whenever they please just because they're a ped.  And given what I've posted, if a car hits a ped when they were in a crosswalk with the walk signal or there was a sign saying to yield to them, the driver should get the book thrown at them.

Signs saying to yield to peds are "nag signs", reminding you what you have to do anyway at every intersection.

I think we're arguing two different things.  You're trying to argue what the present situation is.  I'm arguing that we need to change the present situation.

We do need to change the present situation. It's too lenient on motorists.

Man... um...school zones have little to do with kids not knowing how to look both ways, they have to do with congestion. You don't make the speed limit on a roadway 45 through downtown Seattle, you make it 25 because there is a lot going on, even if everybody is behaving correctly.

The outside of a school during school hours can be a very busy place, so it makes sense to slow down cars. If you're a believer in the 85th percentile speed idea for setting speed limits, I'd bet an exorbitant amount of money that the default 85th percentile speed drops considerably during school hours because of the increased congestion (in a correctly placed school zone). Hence, lower speed limit. By your logic, the speed limit should be 60 on arterials in downtown Manhattan, because, hey, people should know how to cross the street!

If you're in an area with no stop lights and no school zone, how are kids supposed to cross? Even if they are trying to do the right thing and look both ways, traffic on the roadway is going to be going too fast to stop in time to allow them to cross the street. Putting up school zone signs is a lot cheaper than installing elaborate traffic control devices, and serves exactly the same purpose.

Sure, it can be annoying when there's nothing going on and you have to drive the school speed limit, but that's an issue with the specific school zone, not the idea of school zones in general.

In upstate NY, many school zones are not placed for this reason; they are simply there because there's a school.  And by look both ways, I don't mean wait until a car could stop... I mean to wait until the road is clear enough that you could cross with nobody slowing down.

Quote from: NE2 on February 06, 2011, 07:16:27 PM
We do need to change the present situation. It's too lenient on motorists.

I'm thinking the opposite.

Quote from: deanej on February 07, 2011, 09:44:49 AM
I mean to wait until the road is clear enough that you could cross with nobody slowing down.

You don't understand how crosswalks work.

QuoteI'm thinking the opposite.

And why do you think this?

Quotethey are simply there because there's a school

OK, maybe congestion isn't the explicit reason, but schools cause congestion.  There is no possible way to dispute that statement.  All schools have school zones because all schools add congestion.

QuoteAnd by look both ways, I don't mean wait until a car could stop... I mean to wait until the road is clear enough that you could cross with nobody slowing down.

Once again, beginning/end of the school day results in increased congestion (even in upstate New York). How are kids supposed to cross with nobody slowing down if there's no light and a constant stream of cars? They'll never get across or they'll get impatient (just like grown ups do) and dart out anyway.

I guess my other argument would be that school zones are usually a local decision. If Lebanon, Kansas wants to install a school zone and I have to drive slowly through it when I pass through there, that's none of my business. The burden absolutely should be on me to slow down through their school zone as I pass through their town. The people who live there presumably want it, so it's not my place to question it. Once I have kids and I send them to school, then I will see it as my perogative to question the presence of the school zone outside their school (if I do in fact find it questionable). The exception, obviously, is if it's obviously being used for revenue enhancement instead of safety. Then I see it as my right to question any school zone I want- but I don't think most school zones exist for that purpose. 

Quote from: corco on February 07, 2011, 04:10:38 PM
I guess my other argument would be that school zones are usually a local decision. If Lebanon, Kansas wants to install a school zone and I have to drive slowly through it when I pass through there, that's none of my business. The burden absolutely should be on me to slow down through their school zone as I pass through their town. The people who live there presumably want it, so it's not my place to question it. Once I have kids and I send them to school, then I will see it as my perogative to question the presence of the school zone outside their school (if I do in fact find it questionable). The exception, obviously, is if it's obviously being used for revenue enhancement instead of safety. Then I see it as my right to question any school zone I want- but I don't think most school zones exist for that purpose. 

Appealing to the locals' wishes and wants is a dangerous way of looking at the situation. Presumably the residents of New Rome, Ohio wanted that sort of government.

no.  the government of New Rome, Ohio wanted that sort of government.

There never was a school inside the "city limits" of New Rome, Ohio.
Comparing crooked politicians to public safety is apples and oranges.

Quote from: NE2 on February 07, 2011, 11:02:57 AM
You don't understand how crosswalks work.

I wasn't talking about a crosswalk.  I was talking about general crossing where no crosswalk exists.

For example, take a look at this area: http://goo.gl/maps/xuRJ

There is a crosswalk to the north, but the nearest one to the south is half a mile away.  People whose houses are to the south typically jaywalk across the street by doing just as I say: waiting until the road is clear and then running across (typically the waiting is accomplished by walking along the other side until an opportunity to cross develops).  The road is two lanes, but with the traffic for four (it was supposed to be widened 20 years ago, but local opposition killed the plan), and long lines of cars that can easily create a 5-10 minute wait to make a left turn.  The 25mph school limit doesn't do anything to make the congestion more manageable.

Here's another one:  http://goo.gl/maps/6zh6

15mph school zone.  You either slam on the breaks or manage to slow down in time for the school zone to be over.  Pretty much the only way you can travel at the limit is if you're traveling north and get the light at French Rd red.  No idea why either road has them... the kids never get closer to the road than the bus loop.

QuoteAppealing to the locals' wishes and wants is a dangerous way of looking at the situation. Presumably the residents of New Rome, Ohio wanted that sort of government.

Hence my exception for revenue enhancement. Other corrupt activities would also apply

Re: crosswalks and yielding - it is easy for a pedestrian walking at 2 mph to stop and let a car go by. It is not so easy for a car going 30 mph to stop and let a pedestrian go by. If you ask me, forcing cars to yield to pedestrians makes about as much sense as forcing trains to yield to cars. The bigger thing that can't stop as easily ought to have the right of way (unless, of course, the bigger thing is stopping anyway - stop sign or red light). Besides, I, as a pedestrian, am not going to cross streets expecting drivers to yield to me, if for no other reason than that the consequences if someone does not aren't pleasant. Unless I explicitly have a signal in my favor, I am going to make sure nobody is coming before I start crossing and then quickly run across so as to get out of the way as fast as possible.

And that's another thing that gets me: when a driver stops to let you cross the street, they are being courteous to you. Be courteous to them and get a move on. I hate it when I'm stopped (say, at a stop sign) and pedestrians see fit to just leisurely stroll across the street in front of me. Because, you know, it's not like you're in my way or anything. I want to sit here all day, really. The proper thing to do in this situation as a pedestrian is to run, and minimize the delay you are causing.

I actually greatly dislike when a driver slows down and stops to let me cross.  I'd really appreciate if they kept going at a constant speed, so that I can time them and play Frogger and cross the intersection already! 

Quote from: deanej on February 07, 2011, 09:49:02 PM
For example, take a look at this area: http://goo.gl/maps/xuRJ

There is a crosswalk to the north, but the nearest one to the south is half a mile away.

There are unmarked crosswalks at every intersection.

Doesn't make one iota of difference to when you can cross Winton Rd.  I don't believe anyone in upstate NY considers and unmarked crosswalk to be across a major arterial road, only across side streets and parallel to traffic flow.

Then you don't believe anyone in upstate NY knows how to drive properly.

QuoteDoesn't make one iota of difference to when you can cross Winton Rd.  I don't believe anyone in upstate NY considers and unmarked crosswalk to be across a major arterial road, only across side streets and parallel to traffic flow.

All the more reason to....put in a school zone! If cars are going slower, it's safer for pedestrians to take their right of way to cross. With no school zone and people not stopping at crosswalks, jaywalking and other dangerous behavior is encouraged.

Closer to the original topic.

Tennessee is very bad about putting schools on major arterials and putting up school zone even when the school is a couple hundred yards away.

One big example is Grassland Middle School near Franklin, TN:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=grassmere+middle+school&aq=&sll=36.009655,-86.88971&sspn=0.006448,0.010149&ie=UTF8&rq=1&ev=zi&split=1&filter=0&t=h&radius=0.34&hq=grassmere+middle+school&hnear=&ll=36.009594,-86.88808&spn=0.006448,0.010149&z=17&layer=c&cbll=36.009689,-86.888122&panoid=MwfjKUjkNaaHKocvra0b7w&cbp=12,39.22,,0,5

Quote from: deanej on February 05, 2011, 10:59:22 AM

Regardless, if a pedestrian walks into traffic and gets hit, the accident should be 100% their fault regardless of the conduct of the driver (they could be driving 100 mph in a 25 mph zone and would still be at 0% fault) and pay all related costs out of pocket (no insurance bailout) and face a $1000 fine on top of that for reckless conduct.

HEAR! HEAR!  :clap: :clap: :clap: :spin: :spin: :spin: You're preaching to the choir, my friend! I'm sick and tired of pedestrians that step out into traffic and expect me to stop on a dime, or ignore red lights and the "DON'T WALK" picture symbol, or walk on the street even if there's a damned sidewalk (for some stupid reason, joggers are notorious for this). And the cops don't do anything; time and again, I've seen pedestrians do these things right in front of a police car, and the officer just looks the other way. (Although to be fair to the police, the officer could be on his way to something more urgent, but why can't he at least get on the squad car's PA system and say, "The light is red!" or something to that effect?)

And don't get me started on bicyclists! :angry: :angry: :angry: They make pedestrians look like angels!

What's really bad is the drivers who think they're better than everyone else yet violate as many laws. Hypocrites, the lot of them.

IMHO.  I don't think the law should always make either the driver or the pedestrian at fault.

The current rules leave the driver on the hook for foolish and suicidal behavior on the part of the pedestrian.

However, if we do as deanj and hm insulators suggest, we'll likely have Death Race 2000 out there.

Examples:
If you're in a crosswalk and crossing with a "Walk" light or symbol and I hit you, then it's my fault.  But, if you're jaywalking whether it be crossing against the "Walk" light or between crosswalks then it is, at least partially, if not mostly your fault.

In Arizona, they use portable school zone signs, and they're put out in the streets twice a day, once when the kids are going to school, and again when school lets out. When the kids are gone, they set the signs aside and the speed returns to normal.

The speed limit is 15 during these times, but here's the kicker: You also cannot pass in a school zone when they're in effect. This means, that if I'm doing 10 mph in the school zone (well below the speed limit) and the car next to me is doing 5, I can get a ticket for passing in the school zone, even though I'm only doing 10 mph. I can understand the 15 mph speed limit, but the part about no passing is stupid. Does any other state have this idiotic law?

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 07, 2011, 11:48:47 PMI actually greatly dislike when a driver slows down and stops to let me cross.  I'd really appreciate if they kept going at a constant speed, so that I can time them and play Frogger and cross the intersection already!

Personally, I'd rather they just kept going at a consistent speed, but I can understand why they don't and I don't blame them for it.  It is difficult to assess a pedestrian's age and capability, much less his or her awareness of the roadway environment, while moving at 20 MPH or thereabouts and trying to carry out the braking and wheel-turning maneuvers involved in turning from one road to another.  Responsible drivers know that they are far less likely to be nailed for running someone over if they stop, even if it turns out not to be necessary, than if they assume the pedestrian is clued in and are then proved wrong.

Quote from: hm insulators on February 08, 2011, 10:36:12 AMI'm sick and tired of pedestrians that step out into traffic and expect me to stop on a dime, or ignore red lights and the "DON'T WALK" picture symbol, or walk on the street even if there's a damned sidewalk (for some stupid reason, joggers are notorious for this).

A few points here:

*  With the very narrow exception of streets which have traffic signals at every street block, there is no requirement for pedestrians to obey the "DONT WALK" signal if they can see that the road is clear for them to cross.  Streets having traffic signals at every street block bring the anti-jaywalking provisions of the UVC into play and at such locations it is illegal to cross when "DONT WALK" indications are shown.

*  Use of the street instead of the sidewalk can easily be due to uncleared snow, broken or misaligned slabs, lack of continuity, etc.  I never assume that people walking or jogging in the street when a parallel sidewalk appears to be available are using the street just to annoy motorists.  Sidewalks are flat, whereas streets have a camber which can vary from about 1% to 2.5% but is generally around 2% and is at its greatest extent near the curb due to the more or less universal use of barrel cambering on modern paved roads.  Walking or jogging on surfaces with that kind of camber puts extra stress on the hip joint and can be felt as stiffness at the end of a long walk and as outright pain when done regularly over the long term.  People who use the street instead of the sidewalk are therefore paying a price and therefore must be assumed to have a good reason for what they are doing.  (P.S.  Curb aprons, where used, are even more unforgiving.  Often the road camber continues across the curb apron but it is not uncommon for there to be a pronounced grade point at the joint between curb apron and road surface, with camber changing from 2% to 4% or even higher.)

Quote from: hm insulators on February 08, 2011, 10:55:03 AM
The speed limit is 15 during these times, but here's the kicker: You also cannot pass in a school zone when they're in effect. This means, that if I'm doing 10 mph in the school zone (well below the speed limit) and the car next to me is doing 5, I can get a ticket for passing in the school zone, even though I'm only doing 10 mph. I can understand the 15 mph speed limit, but the part about no passing is stupid. Does any other state have this idiotic law?

Presumably it's for the same reason you can't pass a car that's stopped at a crosswalk: the car you're passing might hide you from a crossing pedestrian.

Quote from: corco on February 08, 2011, 10:09:27 AM

QuoteDoesn't make one iota of difference to when you can cross Winton Rd.  I don't believe anyone in upstate NY considers and unmarked crosswalk to be across a major arterial road, only across side streets and parallel to traffic flow.

All the more reason to....put in a school zone! If cars are going slower, it's safer for pedestrians to take their right of way to cross. With no school zone and people not stopping at crosswalks, jaywalking and other dangerous behavior is encouraged.

Slower traffic, IME, encourages less crossing at specifically designated areas to cross and more crossing elsewhere, due to the risk being perceived as less.

How's a driver to spot an unmarked crosswalk, btw? Surely if you want cars to stop, then the best thing to do is to make the crosswalk obvious to drivers, rather than do a load of other bits and fail to actually deal with the problem.

Quote from: J N Winkler on February 08, 2011, 11:19:12 AM

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 07, 2011, 11:48:47 PMI actually greatly dislike when a driver slows down and stops to let me cross.  I'd really appreciate if they kept going at a constant speed, so that I can time them and play Frogger and cross the intersection already!

Quote from: hm insulators on February 08, 2011, 10:36:12 AMI'm sick and tired of pedestrians that step out into traffic and expect me to stop on a dime, or ignore red lights and the "DON'T WALK" picture symbol, or walk on the street even if there's a damned sidewalk (for some stupid reason, joggers are notorious for this).

*  Use of the street instead of the sidewalk can easily be due to uncleared snow, broken or misaligned slabs, lack of continuity, etc.  I never assume that people walking or jogging in the street when a parallel sidewalk appears to be available are using the street just to annoy motorists.  Sidewalks are flat, whereas streets have a camber which can vary from about 1% to 2.5% but is generally around 2% and is at its greatest extent near the curb due to the more or less universal use of barrel cambering on modern paved roads.  Walking or jogging on surfaces with that kind of camber puts extra stress on the hip joint and can be felt as stiffness at the end of a long walk and as outright pain when done regularly over the long term.  People who use the street instead of the sidewalk are therefore paying a price and therefore must be assumed to have a good reason for what they are doing. 

The sidewalks here (Phoenix, AZ) are in good shape. And of course, we don't have to worry about uncleared snow. Pedestrians here (and in Los Angeles) just seem to like to walk in the street, even if the sidewalk available is in perfectly good shape.

Quote from: english si on February 08, 2011, 11:24:28 AM
How's a driver to spot an unmarked crosswalk, btw?

Same way they spot an intersection. Every intersection has a crosswalk before and after, where the perpendicular sidewalks (if present) would extend across the road.

Quote from: NE2 on February 08, 2011, 11:59:11 AM

Quote from: english si on February 08, 2011, 11:24:28 AM
How's a driver to spot an unmarked crosswalk, btw?

Same way they spot an intersection. Every intersection has a crosswalk before and after, where the perpendicular sidewalks (if present) would extend across the road.

Untrue. If a crosswalk is not marked, it's not a crosswalk. Legally, you can cross the street at an intersection whether or not there's a crosswalk.

Quote from: AlpsROADS on February 08, 2011, 11:47:33 PM

Quote from: NE2 on February 08, 2011, 11:59:11 AM

Quote from: english si on February 08, 2011, 11:24:28 AM
How's a driver to spot an unmarked crosswalk, btw?

Same way they spot an intersection. Every intersection has a crosswalk before and after, where the perpendicular sidewalks (if present) would extend across the road.

Untrue. If a crosswalk is not marked, it's not a crosswalk. Legally, you can cross the street at an intersection whether or not there's a crosswalk.

Not necessarily. Some states specifically define legal crosswalks to exist between all corners of any intersection. With this definition, a legal crosswalk exists on every leg of the intersection whether the crossing is marked or not--unless crossing at a particular location is specifically prohibited by a sign or other traffic control device.

Nevada is one such state that defines crosswalks this way.

Quote from: AlpsROADS on February 08, 2011, 11:47:33 PM
If a crosswalk is not marked, it's not a crosswalk. Legally, you can cross the street at an intersection whether or not there's a crosswalk.

Quote from: New Hersey Statutes, 39:1-1  Words and phrases defined."Crosswalk" means that part of a highway at an intersection, either marked or unmarked existing at each approach of every roadway intersection, included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the shoulder, or, if none, from the edges of the roadway; also, any portion of a highway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by lines or other marking on the surface.

Laws like that need to be changed.  Unmarked crosswalks should not exist across roads with double yellow lines (or some other form of dividing directions of travel).  I understand having the law (so the DOT doesn't have to paint lines on every driveway and residential street) but it should be restricted in this case.

Quote from: deanej on February 09, 2011, 11:32:25 AM
I want laws like that to be changed.

Corrected, since there's a difference between want and need.

Quote from: NE2 on February 09, 2011, 12:13:20 PM

Quote from: deanej on February 09, 2011, 11:32:25 AM
I want laws like that to be changed.

Corrected, since there's a difference between want and need.

I disagree, I think there may be an actual need for the law to change here.  When laws get so counterinuitive and/or so little-known that people don't follow them, it creates an unsafe situation (either for the driver who follows the law and gets rear-ended by the one who doesn't -- or worse, for the pedestrian who should have plenty of time to cross, makes it across the first half of the roadway, but the guy going the other way isn't expecting to see a pedestrian cross a four-lane arterial in an unmarked crosswalk).

Note that I'm all for vehicles having to yield to pedestrians in marked crosswalks, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to have unmarked crosswalks in residential areas.  But it's absurd to force cars to yield to pedestrians at every intersection between arterials and residential streets.

Quote from: Kacie Jane on February 09, 2011, 08:27:20 PMNote that I'm all for vehicles having to yield to pedestrians in marked crosswalks, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to have unmarked crosswalks in residential areas.  But it's absurd to force cars to yield to pedestrians at every intersection between arterials and residential streets.

Legalise jaywalking, big education campaign about safe crossing the road, if you cross the road not at a marked crosswalk (which you are encouraged to use where possible), you don't have priority and cross at your own risk. Unmarked crosswalks are a thing of the past, and drivers only have to yield to marked ones.

Works pretty well in the UK.

Quote from: english si on February 10, 2011, 05:34:12 AMLegalise jaywalking, big education campaign about safe crossing the road, if you cross the road not at a marked crosswalk (which you are encouraged to use where possible), you don't have priority and cross at your own risk. Unmarked crosswalks are a thing of the past, and drivers only have to yield to marked ones.

Works pretty well in the UK.

Don't pedestrians in the UK have priority at junctions like in most US states?  The Highway Code mentions this, at least in cases where a motorist pulling into a side street might conflict with a pedestrian crossing the "throat" of the side street.  Also, thoroughfares in British cities are more likely to have refuge islands to facilitate crossing, which makes it less important what the actual stipulations of the law are.

In Hapeville, Georgia -- a small Atlanta suburb between I-75 and I-85 -- there's a 20 mph blanket speed limit from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. or so (M-F), but there are no other speed limits posted after that time; that's the only speed limit sign on the street. I read the Georgia driver's manual -- which seems no one has (lol) -- residential/business districts are 30 m.p.h., unless otherwise posted. Mind you, this street is maybe a 1/4 mile long (Atlanta Avenue).


Be well,

Bryant

Quote from: route56 on May 29, 2012, 12:02:54 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.route56.com%2Fgallery%2Fzp-core%2Fi.php%3Fa%3D2012%2FMay12%2F20120516%26amp%3Bi%3D43706.jpg%26amp%3Bs%3D600%26amp%3Bq%3D85&hash=84666e9cbd768401268e8d836c5e03b67f6a9242)

In Australia, we have an equivalent 40km/h (25mph) speed limit in school zones
The original, now being phased out in favor of ones with flashing lights:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sakai.com.au%2Fimg%2Fproducts%2FKiwalite_Engineer_Keep_School_Zone.jpg&hash=7f07b751883f540d5aff1ef350a7efad6cd5cf03)
The ones with flashing lights were introduced in 2007-2008. The electronic lights are powered by solar panels affixed to the back of the sign. At first they were the standard golden yellow:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ozteacher.com.au%2Fhtml%2Fimages%2Fstories%2Fatm09_05%2Fflash.jpg&hash=e59d1f3e276f65ade3af6c2b09f4adaa9bdfe458)
...it was later changed to a more fluorescent yellow in 2010
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.apnonline.com.au%2Fimg%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F2011%2F06%2F05%2FCCA_06-06-2011_EGN_03_COF030611schoollights002_t325.jpg&hash=b722dff99aa828589a411adada6c549c242ff74f)
Here is a similar one to the one that route56 posted:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adengineering.com.au%2Fimages%2Fproducts%2FSchool-zone-sign-w.jpg&hash=6f103f39951c53ac5ab1debd09d1317e299e2c7e)

Kinda awkward combination of placement and sizes of the school, speed and time information (at least compared to what I'm used to). However, I must applaud the very recognizable and readable sizing of the static time information--not seen on many signs in the states.

I like the layout of that Australian sign--although it would be a change from what is common in the USA, the times being larger and easier to read makes the sign a lot better.  The times are often in tiny lettering that is incredibly hard to read--even if there are not 6 different times listed. 

School Zone Speed Limit is 45 mph at Oakwood Windsor Elementary School on the CHARLESTON HY in Aiken County - and they have beacons accompanying the sign.

Conversely, 13 miles to the east on that same stretch of US 78 known as MAIN ST, the speed limit is 35 mph, while the school zone speed limit is 25 mph at my alma mater, Williston Elko High.

The school speed limits are reasonable in SC for the most part - only a 10 mph drop-off from the speed limit at other times of the day.

What exactly is the point of 35, 45, or even 55 mph school limits? If you hit someone at 35, they will likely die. Why kill them any more at 45 or 55?

The highest speed limit for school zones should be 20-25 mph. If you need a school zone on a road that has a speed limit much more than 25, you either need to build the school in a better location or add tunnels or overpasses so students aren't crossing there.

The point is that the crosswalk needs shorter sight lines if traffic is slower.

In PA, the School Zone Speed Limit is 15 mph.  The only other place I saw a school zone limit that low on a public street was Miami Shores, FL.

In MA, it's 20 mph.
In NJ, I recall seeing a 25 mph limit.

Quote from: Steve on February 08, 2011, 11:47:33 PM

Quote from: NE2 on February 08, 2011, 11:59:11 AM

Quote from: english si on February 08, 2011, 11:24:28 AM
How's a driver to spot an unmarked crosswalk, btw?

Same way they spot an intersection. Every intersection has a crosswalk before and after, where the perpendicular sidewalks (if present) would extend across the road.

Untrue. If a crosswalk is not marked, it's not a crosswalk. Legally, you can cross the street at an intersection whether or not there's a crosswalk.

That is not the case, at least here in Washington State, or in California.  There's a crosswalk at every intersection; some of them are marked and some are not.

Quote from: deanej on February 09, 2011, 11:32:25 AM
Laws like that need to be changed.  Unmarked crosswalks should not exist across roads with double yellow lines (or some other form of dividing directions of travel).  I understand having the law (so the DOT doesn't have to paint lines on every driveway and residential street) but it should be restricted in this case.

Drivers need to know and follow the law.

Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 04, 2011, 09:00:05 PM
schools should not be placed on major arterials.  little residential streets well off the grid are where they belong.

Agreed. 

In Oklahoma, most school zones are 25 MPH.  There are almost always flashing yellow lights that come on when the speed zone is in effect.  Arkansas rarely uses the lights which is annoying.

School zones have speed limit 20 in Seattle.  A few of them have flashing lights when they are in effect, but most just have a sign School Zone, 20 MPH when children are present.  A uselessly vague sign in my opinion -- is an 18-year-old on the way to high school a child?  What about an 18-year-old on the way to somewhere else?  What if it's 10 PM and a parent is pushing a baby along in a stroller?  How about if the children are visible playing in the schoolyard across the fence, but school has been out for two hours?  What if school is in progress, so all the kids are inside in their classes?

Ideally, yes, schools would not face directly onto arterials.  But in practice that's usually not possible.  Schools take up a fair amount of land and there's probably at least one neighborhood arterial along one of the sides.  School buses have a much easier time on a wide arterial than on a narrow residential street.  In Seattle, middle school and high school students have almost all been given bus passes rather than riding the school bus.  The metro buses naturally run along arterials, so many school-age kids are crossing the arterial to and from their buses.  Given that, you pretty much have to have a school zone on the arterial.

Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2012, 06:32:08 PM
you pretty much have to have a school zone on the arterial.

Or trust kids to not be idiots and look before crossing the street.

Seriously, I've always thought school zones are the most pointless thing.

Or ticket drivers who don't fucking yield for people crossing.

Here's something dumb I heard on the radio. Some guy got ticketed for an accident inside the Lincoln Tunnel. The police doubled his fine because he was inside some school zone for a school in Weehawken. Apparently, the school zone extended (?) feet from the school and the tubes are located below the circle formed by that radius (don't know if it's spherically within that radius). Ticket scam by the town or ticket scam by the town?

Quote from: Mr. Matté on June 22, 2012, 10:28:13 AM
Here's something dumb I heard on the radio. Some guy got ticketed for an accident inside the Lincoln Tunnel. The police doubled his fine because he was inside some school zone for a school in Weehawken. Apparently, the school zone extended (?) feet from the school and the tubes are located below the circle formed by that radius (don't know if it's spherically within that radius). Ticket scam by the town or ticket scam by the town?

Definitely sounds like a scam to me.

Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2012, 06:13:11 PM

Quote from: deanej on February 09, 2011, 11:32:25 AM
Laws like that need to be changed.  Unmarked crosswalks should not exist across roads with double yellow lines (or some other form of dividing directions of travel).  I understand having the law (so the DOT doesn't have to paint lines on every driveway and residential street) but it should be restricted in this case.

Drivers need to know and follow the law.

Regardless, it needs to be changed.  Streets major enough to have a double yellow line shouldn't have pedestrians crossing willy-nilly; they should be crossing at MARKED crosswalks.  Just because someone's a pedestrian doesn't mean they should have a right to be above right of way restrictions, but the law as written puts them there.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 21, 2012, 11:05:35 PM

Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2012, 06:32:08 PM
you pretty much have to have a school zone on the arterial.

Or trust kids to not be idiots and look before crossing the street.

Seriously, I've always thought school zones are the most pointless thing.

Agreed, kids are perfectly capable of not being idiots, at least as long as parents teach them these things and expect them to be smart.  Most parents expect (I'd even go so far as want, given today's ideas about what childhood is supposed to be like) their kids to be idiots and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because the kids pick up on that.

Quote from: deanej on June 22, 2012, 12:09:22 PM
Agreed, kids are perfectly capable of not being idiots, at least as long as parents teach them these things and expect them to be smart.  Most parents expect (I'd even go so far as want, given today's ideas about what childhood is supposed to be like) their kids to be idiots and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy because the kids pick up on that.

I guess it depends whether you have higher expectations of little kids or licensed drivers.

Just because a law is personally inconvenient for you doesn't mean it's wrong.

Quote from: kkt on June 22, 2012, 07:26:39 PM
I guess it depends whether you have higher expectations of little kids or licensed drivers.

given a lot of the licensed drivers I see ...

Quote from: deanej on June 22, 2012, 12:09:22 PM
Regardless, it needs to be changed.  Streets major enough to have a double yellow line shouldn't have pedestrians crossing willy-nilly; they should be crossing at MARKED crosswalks.  Just because someone's a pedestrian doesn't mean they should have a right to be above right of way restrictions, but the law as written puts them there.

Double yellow lines are for vehicular passing restrictions, based on sight distance and/or laws on passing in congested areas. They have no bearing on how busy or major a street is.

There are plenty of examples of marked and unmarked crosswalks on streets with double yellow that pose no safety hazard to motorists or pedestrians.

And most of them are in villages or cities that can't be bothered to differentiate between a local street and a major through route (another sin).

EDIT: And to put it another way, the current pedestrian laws are inefficient in all but heavy traffic.  Why should many cars have to wait a minute for a pedestrian to cross when their waiting only saved the pedestrian 10 seconds?  It makes NO SENSE, especially since roads are first and foremost to facilitate car travel.

School zones in middle schools and high schools also don't make much sense.  Those kids are old enough to know how to cross the road no matter what your expectations of cognitive development are.

Not sure what your definition of a "local street" and "major through route" but there are countless examples all over the San Jose area where 2-lane city streets are marked with double-yellow lines and have a speed limit of 30 MPH.  Where I live, the only streets that do not have a center-lines are residential streets which have a 25 MPH limit.

There are certain cities in California (like San Francisco) where the cops are actively looking to ticket drivers that are failing to yield for pedestrians in *marked* crosswalks.  They have gone so far as to have a fellow officer dress as a civilian and step into a crosswalk while other officers downstream of the crosswalk nab drivers failing to stop for the pedestrian.

The California Vehicle Code (CVC), which governs most (if not all) traffic laws, says there are crosswalks at ALL intersections whether they are marked or unmarked.  The CVC also states that pedestrians shall not cross a street between intersections.  So in this case, pedestrians are not allowed to cross "willy-nilly", they have to cross in a marked crosswalk (intersection or mid-block) or unmarked crosswalks at intersections.

Quote from: deanej on June 23, 2012, 12:33:08 PM
roads are first and foremost to facilitate car travel.

Nope.

Quote from: deanej on June 22, 2012, 12:09:22 PM
Regardless, it needs to be changed.  Streets major enough to have a double yellow line shouldn't have pedestrians crossing willy-nilly; they should be crossing at MARKED crosswalks.  Just because someone's a pedestrian doesn't mean they should have a right to be above right of way restrictions, but the law as written puts them there.

Above right of way restrictions?  Would these be your hypothetical right of way restrictions, then?  The law, at least in the states I've lived in, is quite clear about what points a pedestrian may cross at (i.e., right of way).  Typically, the rules go like this:

A pedestrian may not cross the street at a diagonal unless there's marked crosswalk along such a diagonal line (diagonals take longer).

A pedestrian crossing the street at any point other than a crosswalk must yield to all other traffic (though drivers are also compelled to yield to idiots who disobey this one).

Pedestrians in a crosswalk have the right of way, but only inasmuch as they are actually in that lane of travel; drivers don't have to yield to people who are waiting to cross the street, nor do they have to yield to people who haven't made it to their lane yet.

Where a signalized intersection (or pedestrian tunnel/bridge) is within one or two blocks of where a pedestrian wishes to cross the street, he must cross at the signalized intersection, and must wait for a green traffic signal or WALK signal as the case may be.

These all seem pretty commonsense.  Do you really expect every town to paint three or four crosswalks at every intersection of minor side streets?  If not, then the distinction between unstriped and striped streets seems like a very arbitrary line of demarcation between "major enough" and "not major enough".  I'd say the law, as it stands, provides quite reasonable right of way restrictions.  The law defines a crosswalk as a place where one would reasonably expect people to be walking across, which would be marked crosswalks, the continuation of a sidewalk across a street, or along the curb line through an intersection where no sidewalk runs parallel to the street.  Again, it's a commonsense definition.

Here are a couple of articles that ran in the San Jose Mercury News this week in Gary Richards' Mr. Roadshow column.  Keep in mind what is said in his columns about pedestrian right-of-way is only applicable in California...

http://www.mercurynews.com/mr-roadshow/ci_20834179/roadshow-rules-road-drivers-and-pedestrians

http://www.mercurynews.com/mr-roadshow/ci_20834215/roadshow-pedestrians-have-right-way-at-unmarked-crosswalks

FWIW, I nearly failed my Behind-the Wheel test at the DMV because I made a right turn while there was a pedestrian in the crosswalk walking away from me.  If I recall correctly, I scored 73/100 (the pedestrian violation cost me 20 pts).  70 is passing.

Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2012, 06:32:08 PM
School zones have speed limit 20 in Seattle.  A few of them have flashing lights when they are in effect, but most just have a sign School Zone, 20 MPH when children are present.  A uselessly vague sign in my opinion -- is an 18-year-old on the way to high school a child?  What about an 18-year-old on the way to somewhere else?  What if it's 10 PM and a parent is pushing a baby along in a stroller?  How about if the children are visible playing in the schoolyard across the fence, but school has been out for two hours?  What if school is in progress, so all the kids are inside in their classes?

Nothing personal, but you sound like a DWI Lawyer here digging for some technicality.

There's nothing vague about the correct action: See those kids? Slow down, just in case one of them foolishly jumps into the street.

However, occasionally you will see a sign where they tried to jam in the entire school schedule. The driver surely can't digest the sign, but I suppose it's because someone lawyered their way out of a charge. As an actual practical matter, "Children Present" should be clear enough.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 21, 2012, 11:05:35 PM
Seriously, I've always thought school zones are the most pointless thing.

I don't know if they're pointless, but I can't think of any instance where a School Zone caused me to be late or inconvenienced me in even the slightest way. I am not exactly sure what to think about someone who believes they are being oppressed by School Zones. First World Problems?

There's one school zone in my home town of Brighton where it's posted at 15 for such a short stretch that the only way one can hope to slow down from 30 before the school zone ends is to slam on the breaks.  And even the 30 limit feels like you crawling (it really should be 35; I don't know why the roads in this part of Brighton are 30 when the rest of the town is 35), so 15 feels like you're standing still.  The 25 by the middle school and high school aren't too bad, but I'm not sure why they need school zones, which are typically for elementary schools.  The primary school has no school zone (due to it's placement at a cul-de-sac which serves as part of it's parking lot and bus loop), and the elementary school faces two roads (only one of which is 15), and the middle school faces thee (only one of which is 25, though good luck driving faster than 15 through Twelve Corners due to traffic lights).

Quote from: myosh_tino on June 23, 2012, 02:22:59 PM
Not sure what your definition of a "local street" and "major through route" but there are countless examples all over the San Jose area where 2-lane city streets are marked with double-yellow lines and have a speed limit of 30 MPH.  Where I live, the only streets that do not have a center-lines are residential streets which have a 25 MPH limit.

Generally, if something is owned by the state or county vs. the city/town/village.  Most cities and villages (in NY at least) won't care and have minimal signage even if they sign the route at all.  For example, until recently, there were no signs for US 11 in the city of Syracuse, and even now, they only bother to sign a turn at the turn, so you can't react to it unless you knew it was coming anyways.  The same happens in downtown Rochester.  I'll never cease to be amazed at how difficult navigating city downtowns is, having lived my entire life in the suburbs.

Quote from: NE2 on June 23, 2012, 02:25:27 PM

Quote from: deanej on June 23, 2012, 12:33:08 PM
roads are first and foremost to facilitate car travel.

Nope.

Where'd you get that idea from?  Sure, downtowns muddy the waters a bit, but once you get out of the city...

Quote from: deanej on June 24, 2012, 01:55:47 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 23, 2012, 02:25:27 PM

Quote from: deanej on June 23, 2012, 12:33:08 PM
roads are first and foremost to facilitate car travel.

Nope.

Where'd you get that idea from?  Sure, downtowns muddy the waters a bit, but once you get out of the city...

There were roads before there were cars.  That's where the "first" comes from.  As for "foremost", that depends on whether you're the driver or the pedestrian–or the cyclist or what have you.  My perspective on the function of roads changed a LOT in the five or six years I was without a car.

If roads were designed to primarily facilitate pedestrian use, why was the sidewalk invented? (Couldn't they just walk down the road? Why do they need their own carriageway?) Why would crosswalks be needed? Why are the signs along it designed for viewing at speeds of 30 MPH and up? Why are they reflective? Pedestrians often don't carry a source of light.

I think it's clear that roads are primarily designed for car usage. Well-designed roads can accommodate bikes and pedestrians through the use of techniques to make them usable for those modes of transport (shoulders, bike lanes, crosswalks, sidewalks). But make no mistake. When roads are designed, the needs of the guy driving the car is what is most on the engineer's mind. Everything else is an extra feature.

If roads were designed to primarily facilitate car use, why was the carriageway invented?

Carriageway is just a word used to describe, say, the eastbound lanes of a divided highway. It is not actually literally designed for carriages. Nobody (except the Amish) has carriages anymore. It is an anachronism.

I think you are confusing my post as arguing what the original purpose of roads was when they were first introduced in Roman times, when what I am pointing out is the usage pattern roads are designed for today. Usage of anything can change; Listerine was invented as a surgeon's disinfectant but they found that it sold better when marketed as a mouthwash. No surgeon uses Listerine for its originally intended purpose anymore.

Or you might just be ignoring the content of my post in favor of being obstinate, which is more likely, considering.

Quote from: NE2 on June 21, 2012, 11:40:44 PM
Or ticket drivers who don't fucking yield for people crossing.

How about ticketing pedestrians who cross against the light or stop sign, or mid-block without a proper crosswalk?  I'd like to see that happen too.

Quote from: Brandon on June 24, 2012, 08:52:49 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 21, 2012, 11:40:44 PM
Or ticket drivers who don't fucking yield for people crossing.

How about ticketing pedestrians who cross against the light or stop sign, or mid-block without a proper crosswalk?  I'd like to see that happen too.

Are there laws prohibiting me from walking across a street within a crosswalk against a STOP sign?  Maybe there are, but I wasn't aware.

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 24, 2012, 07:32:39 PM
If roads were designed to primarily facilitate pedestrian use, why was the sidewalk invented? * * * I think it's clear that roads are primarily designed for car usage. Well-designed roads can accommodate bikes and pedestrians through the use of techniques to make them usable for those modes of transport (shoulders, bike lanes, crosswalks, sidewalks). But make no mistake. When roads are designed, the needs of the guy driving the car is what is most on the engineer's mind. Everything else is an extra feature.

You have made a slight shift in your wording.  In the first instance, you said what roads are primarily for.  In the second, you stated what roads are primarily designed for and then supported it by talking about design features.  I do not disagree with you that, when a road is designed, the primary driver of its features is the motorist.  However, I still disagree with the notion that the purpose of roads (i.e., what they are for) is more for cars than for other forms of traffic.

Speaking of Amish country, for example, you will often note on major highways that horse-drawn vehicles are accommodated by providing a wide, flat, gravel and grassy path next to the pavement.  It is obviously to lower standards than the paved roadway itself, which is fine since it doesn't need to be.  That is to say, the design characteristics of a road are determined by motor vehicles, and non-motorized traffic has a fairly easy time of working around them; it's much harder for motorized traffic to work around characteristics that were designed primarily with pedestrian, bicycle, or animal interests in mind.  BUT.  I would not agree that the purpose of the road's existence is more for cars or trucks than for horse-drawn buggies, bicycles, or pedestrians.  I would contend that it serves the needs of such modes of transportation equally, with its design based upon the perceived relative need of different modes of transportation employed on it.

So, then, when it comes to crosswalks (and, working backwards up the thread, to school children crossing the street), I believe pedestrians don't have too much right of way granted to them by law.  In fact, as a former hitchhiker, I see areas in which I wish they had more.  It stems from my notion that cars aren't more entitled to a road than someone walking his dog.

Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2012, 09:50:02 PM

Quote from: Brandon on June 24, 2012, 08:52:49 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 21, 2012, 11:40:44 PM
Or ticket drivers who don't fucking yield for people crossing.

How about ticketing pedestrians who cross against the light or stop sign, or mid-block without a proper crosswalk?  I'd like to see that happen too.

Are there laws prohibiting me from walking across a street within a crosswalk against a STOP sign?  Maybe there are, but I wasn't aware.

It's a stop sign for all traffic, not just cars.  That means you need to stop and look first.  I've seen far too many joggers and bicyclists who think stop signs do not apply to them, but in the traffic codes, they apply to ALL traffic.

As far as I am concerned, a jogger who gets plastered for running through a stop sign without looking should be at fault.

Quote from: Brandon on June 24, 2012, 10:08:56 PM

Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2012, 09:50:02 PM

Quote from: Brandon on June 24, 2012, 08:52:49 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 21, 2012, 11:40:44 PM
Or ticket drivers who don't fucking yield for people crossing.

How about ticketing pedestrians who cross against the light or stop sign, or mid-block without a proper crosswalk?  I'd like to see that happen too.

Are there laws prohibiting me from walking across a street within a crosswalk against a STOP sign?  Maybe there are, but I wasn't aware.

It's a stop sign for all traffic, not just cars.  That means you need to stop and look first.  I've seen far too many joggers and bicyclists who think stop signs do not apply to them, but in the traffic codes, they apply to ALL traffic.

As far as I am concerned, a jogger who gets plastered for running through a stop sign without looking should be at fault.

I'm looking through Kansas' vehicle code right now, and I'm just not seeing that pedestrians are required to stop at STOP signs.  Bicycles, yes, but not pedestrians within crosswalks, unless doing so would create an "immediate hazard".

Drivers are required to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks:

QuoteStatute 8-1533: Same; right-of-way at crosswalks; interference with vehicular traffic; duties of drivers. (a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.
      (b)   No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.

      (c)   Subsection (a) shall not apply under the conditions stated in subsection (b) of K.S.A. 8-1534.

      (d)   Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.

Pedestrians must obey traffic signals and gates, but no mention is made of STOP signs:

QuoteStatute 8-1532: Pedestrians; obedience to official traffic-control devices required. (a) A pedestrian shall obey the instructions of any official traffic-control device specifically applicable to such pedestrian, unless otherwise directed by a police officer.
      (b)   Pedestrians shall be subject to traffic and pedestrian-control signals as provided in K.S.A. 8-1508 and 8-1509.

      (c)   At all other places, pedestrians shall be accorded the privileges and shall be subject to the restrictions stated in this chapter

• .
  
  Statute 8-1544: Obedience of pedestrian to bridge and railroad signals required. (a) No pedestrian shall enter or remain upon any bridge or approach thereto beyond the bridge signal, gate or barrier after a bridge operation signal indication has been given.
        (b)   No pedestrian shall pass through, around, over or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad grade crossing or bridge while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.
  
  Statute 8-1478: "Traffic-control signal" defined. "Traffic-control signal" means any device, whether manually, electrically or mechanically operated, by which traffic is alternately directed to stop and permitted to proceed.

So, although it may seem commonsense that pedestrians ought to yield to traffic before crossing a road within a crosswalk, and I doubt anyone would advocate walking blindly into a road, I don't find that the law actually compels a pedestrian to yield to any but the most immediate of traffic; making a car slam on its brakes and swerve would be posing an immediate hazard (illegal), but simply making a car slow down and wait does not pose an immediate hazard (legal).  Maybe the law is different in your state, I don't know.

Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2012, 09:50:02 PM

Quote from: Brandon on June 24, 2012, 08:52:49 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 21, 2012, 11:40:44 PM
Or ticket drivers who don't fucking yield for people crossing.

How about ticketing pedestrians who cross against the light or stop sign, or mid-block without a proper crosswalk?  I'd like to see that happen too.

Are there laws prohibiting me from walking across a street within a crosswalk against a STOP sign?  Maybe there are, but I wasn't aware.

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 24, 2012, 07:32:39 PM
If roads were designed to primarily facilitate pedestrian use, why was the sidewalk invented? * * * I think it's clear that roads are primarily designed for car usage. Well-designed roads can accommodate bikes and pedestrians through the use of techniques to make them usable for those modes of transport (shoulders, bike lanes, crosswalks, sidewalks). But make no mistake. When roads are designed, the needs of the guy driving the car is what is most on the engineer's mind. Everything else is an extra feature.

You have made a slight shift in your wording.  In the first instance, you said what roads are primarily for.  In the second, you stated what roads are primarily designed for and then supported it by talking about design features.  I do not disagree with you that, when a road is designed, the primary driver of its features is the motorist.  However, I still disagree with the notion that the purpose of roads (i.e., what they are for) is more for cars than for other forms of traffic.

Speaking of Amish country, for example, you will often note on major highways that horse-drawn vehicles are accommodated by providing a wide, flat, gravel and grassy path next to the pavement.  It is obviously to lower standards than the paved roadway itself, which is fine since it doesn't need to be.  That is to say, the design characteristics of a road are determined by motor vehicles, and non-motorized traffic has a fairly easy time of working around them; it's much harder for motorized traffic to work around characteristics that were designed primarily with pedestrian, bicycle, or animal interests in mind.  BUT.  I would not agree that the purpose of the road's existence is more for cars or trucks than for horse-drawn buggies, bicycles, or pedestrians.  I would contend that it serves the needs of such modes of transportation equally, with its design based upon the perceived relative need of different modes of transportation employed on it.

So, then, when it comes to crosswalks (and, working backwards up the thread, to school children crossing the street), I believe pedestrians don't have too much right of way granted to them by law.  In fact, as a former hitchhiker, I see areas in which I wish they had more.  It stems from my notion that cars aren't more entitled to a road than someone walking his dog.

You raise a good point. If we are to consider what roads in abstract are truly for, at its base, the answer to the question is simply "transportation", no preference to the mode of transport. We can see that by the fact that such roads exist that ban cars (M-185, bike trails). A sidewalk is basically a road just for walking on.

But what I am arguing is that what we tend to consider "roads" in the year 2012 tend to be those that are designed primarily for the car. The fact that the needs of the car are given the highest priority when in the design process seems to suggest that the folks designing them tend to think of the road as being primarily for cars. The design process does not go "We need some way for people to bicycle out of Village Pointe, oh, and I guess people can drive on it too." It's the other way round–the car is what is in the engineer's mind while he's designing, and wouldn't you know it, it turns out that with a little extra work you can make a great place for people to ride bikes and walk as well. That is what I believe deanej means by "roads are first and foremost to facilitate car travel".

Really, when it comes down to it, all right of way decisions are going to be an arbitrary choice on some level. I think it makes more sense to most people for the person going a high rate of speed and only controlling their velocity by means of an intermediary machine should probably, in most cases, have ROW over someone who has the ability to stop or change directions on a moment's notice. If I'm driving a my car down the street at 40, a pedestrian about to walk in front of my path at 2 mph is going to be able to stop and let me go much easier than I am going to be able to stop for them. But that's not the way the law is written, and people must respect that until the unlikely event that it changes.

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 24, 2012, 11:13:00 PM
A sidewalk is basically a road just for walking on.

Actually a sidewalk is usually PART of a road.

Quote from: NE2 on June 25, 2012, 01:42:37 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 24, 2012, 11:13:00 PM
A sidewalk is basically a road just for walking on.

Actually a sidewalk is usually PART of a road.

No, usually it's within the same right of way but separated by a buffer.

You can also have sidewalks in a park, as part of a walking trail, between buildings on a college campus, etc.

Quote from: Steve on June 25, 2012, 08:30:07 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 25, 2012, 01:42:37 AM

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 24, 2012, 11:13:00 PM
A sidewalk is basically a road just for walking on.

Actually a sidewalk is usually PART of a road.

No, usually it's within the same right of way but separated by a buffer.

Fine, it's part of the street. Per the UVC a "roadway" doesn't include sidewalks or shoulders.

Quote from: flowmotion on June 24, 2012, 01:44:42 AM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 21, 2012, 11:05:35 PM
Seriously, I've always thought school zones are the most pointless thing.

I don't know if they're pointless, but I can't think of any instance where a School Zone caused me to be late or inconvenienced me in even the slightest way. I am not exactly sure what to think about someone who believes they are being oppressed by School Zones. First World Problems?

I never said I was being "oppressed" by them. I said they're pointless. If a high school student is stupid enough to step out in front of a car, well, good riddance. No reason I should have to slow down passing by.
Also, it's not like one is going to slow you down so much that it's going to make you late, it's just that the act of slowing down arbitrarily is a waste of time and effort, especially when the school zone only exists as a revenue stream. The ones that bother me are along a rural highway near a high school. What possible benefit does requiring highway traffic to slow down from 55 to 45 if there is a teenager nearby provide?

Plus there are those people who will be content to cruise along at the speed limit normally but will slam on the brakes and drive 10mph under the limit as soon as they see a lower one coming.

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 26, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
What possible benefit does requiring highway traffic to slow down from 55 to 45 if there is a teenager nearby provide?

This has been explained numerous times. You're supposed to stop if a pedestrian is waiting to cross. Slowing to 45 means you won't have to brake as much if one is there.

Quote from: NE2 on June 26, 2012, 04:04:56 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 26, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
What possible benefit does requiring highway traffic to slow down from 55 to 45 if there is a teenager nearby provide?

This has been explained numerous times. You're supposed to stop if a pedestrian is waiting to cross. Slowing to 45 means you won't have to brake as much if one is there.

Waiting?  Bull.  It is when the pedestrian is IN the crosswalk, not ON the curb.  ON the curb could mean he's waiting for a bus as well.

Quote from: Brandon on June 26, 2012, 07:49:45 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 26, 2012, 04:04:56 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 26, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
What possible benefit does requiring highway traffic to slow down from 55 to 45 if there is a teenager nearby provide?

This has been explained numerous times. You're supposed to stop if a pedestrian is waiting to cross. Slowing to 45 means you won't have to brake as much if one is there.

Waiting?  Bull.  It is when the pedestrian is IN the crosswalk, not ON the curb.  ON the curb could mean he's waiting for a bus as well.

Correct.  The law only requires that a driver yield to a person who has actually started to cross the street or is just about to take that first step.  In that regard I've never seen any distinction made in law between a school crosswalk and any other.

I'm far bolder than most people when it comes to stepping out into traffic, as long as I'm in a crosswalk, but that doesn't mean I stop and wait for the chicken-hearted to make up their minds as to whether or not they're going to cross the street.  Step out, and I'll stop; stand there like a rabbit in the headlights, and I'll do little more than hover my foot over the brake–if that.

Quote from: Brandon on June 26, 2012, 07:49:45 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 26, 2012, 04:04:56 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 26, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
What possible benefit does requiring highway traffic to slow down from 55 to 45 if there is a teenager nearby provide?

This has been explained numerous times. You're supposed to stop if a pedestrian is waiting to cross. Slowing to 45 means you won't have to brake as much if one is there.

Waiting?  Bull.  It is when the pedestrian is IN the crosswalk, not ON the curb.  ON the curb could mean he's waiting for a bus as well.

So you put your foot out into the crosswalk, and if the car doesn't stop you pull it in and reflect on the injustice of the world.

Quote from: NE2 on June 26, 2012, 11:20:02 PM

Quote from: Brandon on June 26, 2012, 07:49:45 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 26, 2012, 04:04:56 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 26, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
What possible benefit does requiring highway traffic to slow down from 55 to 45 if there is a teenager nearby provide?

This has been explained numerous times. You're supposed to stop if a pedestrian is waiting to cross. Slowing to 45 means you won't have to brake as much if one is there.

Waiting?  Bull.  It is when the pedestrian is IN the crosswalk, not ON the curb.  ON the curb could mean he's waiting for a bus as well.

So you put your foot out into the crosswalk, and if the car doesn't stop you pull it in and reflect on the injustice of the world.

To be honest, I've been known to knock the fender of the car with my knuckles as it passes by.  Depending on the car, that can sound loud inside.  Once, I had a driver turn around, stop, and ask if I was OK.

Quote from: NE2 on June 26, 2012, 11:20:02 PM

Quote from: Brandon on June 26, 2012, 07:49:45 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 26, 2012, 04:04:56 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 26, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
What possible benefit does requiring highway traffic to slow down from 55 to 45 if there is a teenager nearby provide?

This has been explained numerous times. You're supposed to stop if a pedestrian is waiting to cross. Slowing to 45 means you won't have to brake as much if one is there.

Waiting?  Bull.  It is when the pedestrian is IN the crosswalk, not ON the curb.  ON the curb could mean he's waiting for a bus as well.

So you put your foot out into the crosswalk, and if the car doesn't stop you pull it in and reflect on the injustice of the world.

No, you should wait your turn rather than expect people to stop just because urbanists like to put pedestrians in a privileged position simply because they aren't motorists.  I always yield unless someone stops (and in that case I cross thinking about how much less efficient the system is as a result; they decided to wait a minute for me to cross, whereas I would only needed to have waited a second for them to pass).  If there's a signal, I ALWAYS push the button and wait for walk, even if there's no traffic.  And if there isn't, I wait for traffic to clear before crossing.  Why should a bunch of drivers have to wait a minute on me when I would only have to wait a second on them?  It makes no sense.

Btw, there are plenty of school zones that don't have uncontrolled crosswalks in them, including all of the ones in the school district where I grew up.

What K. Phoger said.

the laws as placed on regulatory signs state "stop for pedestrians in crosswalk".  not "next to crosswalk", "thinking about crossing", "doing a crossword puzzle at the cafe down the street", etc.

Quote from: deanej on June 27, 2012, 10:13:04 AM

Quote from: NE2 on June 26, 2012, 11:20:02 PM

Quote from: Brandon on June 26, 2012, 07:49:45 PM

Quote from: NE2 on June 26, 2012, 04:04:56 PM

Quote from: deathtopumpkins on June 26, 2012, 12:55:32 PM
What possible benefit does requiring highway traffic to slow down from 55 to 45 if there is a teenager nearby provide?

This has been explained numerous times. You're supposed to stop if a pedestrian is waiting to cross. Slowing to 45 means you won't have to brake as much if one is there.

Waiting?  Bull.  It is when the pedestrian is IN the crosswalk, not ON the curb.  ON the curb could mean he's waiting for a bus as well.

So you put your foot out into the crosswalk, and if the car doesn't stop you pull it in and reflect on the injustice of the world.

No, you should wait your turn rather than expect people to stop just because urbanists like to put pedestrians in a privileged position simply because they aren't motorists.  I always yield unless someone stops (and in that case I cross thinking about how much less efficient the system is as a result; they decided to wait a minute for me to cross, whereas I would only needed to have waited a second for them to pass).  If there's a signal, I ALWAYS push the button and wait for walk, even if there's no traffic.  And if there isn't, I wait for traffic to clear before crossing.  Why should a bunch of drivers have to wait a minute on me when I would only have to wait a second on them?  It makes no sense.

Btw, there are plenty of school zones that don't have uncontrolled crosswalks in them, including all of the ones in the school district where I grew up.

I find the opposite to be true on many roads:  for me to wait for an actual gap in traffic wide enough to walk through, I would be waiting for at least a couple of minutes.  OTOH, waiting for just a thinning-out of traffic requires only one minute tops, usually much less, and typically doesn't require any driver to come to a full stop; I end up costing maybe four vehicles about five seconds of their drive but saved myself perhaps 1.5 minutes of mine.

When I lived in the Chicago suburbs, I lived right on Roosevelt Road for a little less than a year, then one block away from Roosevelt Road for a few years a while later.  I also didn't own a car for most of my time there.  I quickly learned that, by waiting for traffic to completely clear before crossing the road, I would be stuck on the curb forever, especially at peak traffic times.  I find the same thing to be true here in Wichita when I need to cross Lincoln Street near my house.  Wait for the big "clot" of cars to make it through the "artery", and then just start walking.

Quote from: deanej on June 27, 2012, 10:13:04 AM
No, you should wait your turn rather than expect people to stop just because urbanists like to put pedestrians in a privileged position simply because they aren't motorists.

You have a funny notion of turns.  Wouldn't taking turns equally mean the party that gets to the intersection first goes first?  Unless the pedestrian is suicidally stepping out directly in front of the car, the pedestrian gets to the intersection first and is hoping the drivers still half a block away will stop as required by custom and law.

Many drivers are oblivious to pedestrians, so a pedestrian can stand in the crosswalk a few steps off the curb and still have to wait 10 minutes to cross.  I suppose all of them are wondering why the speed limit is below 40 mph.

My old high school has a crosswalk with lights that flash between classes and at the beginning/end of the school day. There's also a crossing guard that stands in the middle of the road with a stop sign paddle during these times.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc6%2Fc0.102.612.407%2F252622_4168769178769_545100151_n.jpg&hash=7c71f70ef90d59e592fe073fabf75f5a26595ff0)

I don't remember when the lights were added (I just know it was after I graduated) but I think (and I may be wrong) this was done after a student was hit by a car.

Quote from: Takumi on June 27, 2012, 07:09:00 PM
My old high school has a crosswalk with lights that flash between classes and at the beginning/end of the school day. There's also a crossing guard that stands in the middle of the road with a stop sign paddle during these times.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ak-snc6%2Fc0.102.612.407%2F252622_4168769178769_545100151_n.jpg&hash=7c71f70ef90d59e592fe073fabf75f5a26595ff0)


I don't remember when the lights were added (I just know it was after I graduated) but I think (and I may be wrong) this was done after a student was hit by a car.

They were installed I believe around 2008, and our old crossing guard was also hit as well making there three hits that happened in that crosswalk while I was attending.

 :evilgrin:  :-D
You know those lime green emergency signs? Well in New Zealand  they use it for pedestrian-related situations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_New_Zealand#Vehicle_Mounted), but they're a bit less citric than the MUTCD, because they're a bit like 'Borat Mankini' type green.  :spin: