School Zones...

[kkt]

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.

[deathtopumpkins]

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.

[NE2]

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

[Mr. Matté]

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?

[US71]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

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.

[kkt]

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.

[agentsteel53]

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

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

[roadfro]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[myosh_tino]

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.

[NE2]

roads are first and foremost to facilitate car travel.

Nope.

[kphoger]

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.

[myosh_tino]

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.

[flowmotion]

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.

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?

[vdeane]

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).

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.

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...

[kphoger]

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.

[Scott5114]

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.

[NE2]

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

[Scott5114]

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.

[Brandon]

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.

[kphoger]

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.

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.

[Brandon]

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.

[kphoger]

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:

Statute 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:

Statute 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.

[Scott5114]

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.

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.