It's not wise to walk in front of a turning car

[Anaamika]

You know, when I'm trying to turn right onto a busy road? And I'm studiously looking left, to see if the way has cleared, and I'm glancing right but predominantly I'm looking left?

Well, it's really stupid to walk in front of my car at this point. I realize I am in the car and you are walking, and it's my responsibility to watch out for you. However, for your own sake, it might be prudent to

a) go around behind me, I drive a Corolla, it's 15 extra steps,

b) kind of glance ahead and judge the traffic: is the traffic clear? Does this person look like she's going to turn?

It's never a good idea to step in front of me without looking, you nimrod!

And I won't swear just because it's the Pit. I'm not nearly irritated enough to swear. Just mildly peeved.

[tisiphone]

a) go around behind me, I drive a Corolla, it's 15 extra steps,



Because I'll get pasted by the guy turning onto the street I'm crossing, 'cause I'm short and he can't see me through your car.

Other than that, carry on.

[mlerose]

Sorry, the pedestrian's got the right of way. Particularly in a crosswalk, when the little white man is all lit up.

At least you bothered to notice that the person was there. I can't even count the number of times I've been walking in the crosswalk during MY RIGHT OF WAY and someone tried to turn right without bothering to see if a pedestrian was there. That's why you're supposed to look BOTH DIRECTIONS before turning.

My boyfriend actually got hit by a truck last year when said truck turned right into him when he was in the crosswalk. Truck driver never bothered to look right before turning right.

[Graycat]

This is why most European countries don't have right turn on red. It's hell on pedestrians.

[Bill H.]

Anaamika wrote
go around behind me, I drive a Corolla, it's 15 extra steps,
Uh, no. You got some nerve there, pointing out correctly that "I realize I am in the car and you are walking, and it's my responsibility to watch out for you.", and then suggest that if you hit a pedestrian that they are somehow responsible.

If your suggestion were a general safety statement (i.e. "you never know what kind of lunatics drive cars; treat them as lunatics and stay safe"), then it would be fine. But as you were talking about you behind the wheel, you really need to reconsider where you point this pitting.

I'm assuming that earlier today you almost injured someone and now have come here to complain about them. Perhaps they have an opinion on this matter; I know I would if you had told me to walk behind you so you don't have to pay attention to the road.

[Giraffe]

Sorry, I've got to put another vote in for the OP being wrong. It is 100% your job as a driver to make sure there's no one coming from the right before you turn. If that means you miss your hole and have to wait longer to turn, so be it.

I mean, I understand where you're coming from in terms of pedestrians who assume way too much awareness on the part of drivers they're walking in front of. I personally tend to be more cautious when I'm a pedestrian, just because I know how bad some drivers are. But you're not allowed to rant about them when you're the driver in question, since it's your responsibility not to hit them in the first place.

[Vegasgirl]

Did it ever possibly occur to you that you happen to be in a one ton death machine, while the pedestrian has no protection whatsoever??
If you can't look both ways before making a turn- especially if you're at a red light where you DON'T have the right-of-way, maybe you shouldn't be driving at all.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Sorry, the pedestrian's got the right of way. Particularly in a crosswalk, when the little white man is all lit up.Around here, failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk when the little white man is all lit up can result in the driver being hit with a $500 fine.

[Ephemera]

Tell me about it.

[blowero]

Sorry, another vote against the OP. There's no excuse for not looking in the direction your car is going. No excuse.

[Medea's Child]

I have to agree with the whole "pedestrians right of way" bit. Right on red is only an option when other traffic - vehicle and foot- has cleared.

Just wait for the walking people, it'll only be a few moments.

[Morbo]

I've never disagreed more with an OP. There's absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not looking into the crosswalk. Try that in San Francisco and you'll get a $500 ticket at best, and a throng of pedestrians beating the crap out of your hood at worst.

"Go around behind me" - you have got to be kidding me.

[Gala Matrix Fire]

Don't take this personally, because all I'm doing is taking advantage of the Pit environment when I say:

You @#$%-@#$%er, you're in a fucking car with air conditioning blasting or heating toasting you, depending on the weather, while I'm out here on foot, braving idiots like you so I can get to fucking work or the store or just out getting some fucking exercise, and you can't wait a fucking ten seconds more to let me cross the street where I HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT OF WAY you @#$% @#$% er!

I suppose you're never a pedestrian? You just park your car and then levitate into the building!?!? You're lucky I don't fucking walk ON your car if you leave it in the middle of the fucking crosswalk while you wait for your break in traffic so you can get where you're going FIVE FULL SECONDs earlier than if you waited on me like someone with a fucking SOUL would do!! And then when you get there five seconds earlier, you sit in your fucking car so you can hear the end of the song you like, you @#$%er!

I really need the adrenaline rush of a solid ton of metal and plastic bearing down on me at 35 miles an hour! Because I'm such an asshole, daring to WALK or RIDE my bike in the vicinity of your car.

Slow the fuck down, you @#$%%er!

(Nothing personal, Anaamika)

[Vegasgirl]

Bluethree- thank you, thank you, thank you, and well said! You're my personal hero!!!

[Pazu]

I've been hit twice in crosswalks by cars whose drivers were waiting to turn right on red. The first time, I escaped with a bruised knee. The second time, one of the front tires ripped the toenail off my left big toe (I was wearing sandals).

The thing is, as a pedestrian, you can't always second-guess the driver. The first time, I thought I was safe, but the driver apparently thought he could make it into the traffic gap. The second time, the guy just wasn't looking and let his SUV roll forward.

I strenuously disagree with the OP.

[Dragonblink]

Have we met? Cuz you must have been one of the drivers who damn near bounced me off their fenders in the middle of a crosswalk when I had a green light and a walk sign.

Or perhaps you were the one who came within an inch of hitting the guy in crutches who crossed just before me one day.

I'm looking where I'm going, why aren't you?

[Dog80]

You all assume that the OP was turning right on red. What if it was an intersection with no traffic lights at all? In any case I agree with the OP.

[catsix]

The driver is supposed to yield to the pedestrian whether they're right turning on red as the pedestrian uses the crosswalk on the street the driver is turning from, and when the driver has a green and the pedestrian has a walk signal on the street the driver is turning onto.

No matter how you slice it, pedestrians always have the right of way. It's always the driver's responsibility to look for them. It's also illegal for them to cross behind your car, outside the crosswalk. While it's a good idea as a pedestrian to pay attention to what the drivers are doing, because many of them have their heads up their asses, it is never acceptable for a driver to expect and insist that the pedestrians get the hell out of the way.

I once had a driver nearly hit me as I crossed a street, in the crosswalk, with a walk signal. This driver leaned out of her window and yelled at me 'Watch it. Yo behind ain't got no bumpers.'

I yelled back 'No, but it does have a lawyer.' Not that I'd want to get hit, but she was clearly wrong. So is the OP.

[Bill H.]

Dog80 wrote
You all assume that the OP was turning right on red. What if it was an intersection with no traffic lights at all? In any case I agree with the OP.
Maybe in Greece, cars have the right of way, and hitting a pedestrian is ok, as long as you were looking the other way a the time. I've never been there, so I wouldn't know.

But here where the OP and I live, pedestrians have the right of way. At an intersection, if a car and a human collide, and the human isn't doing anything wrong like walking against a red light or something, it's the car's fault.

I'm shocked to hear things are different where you are, and I suspect you're mistaken. You may want to read up on your local driving laws.

[Bippy the Beardless]

To be fare the OP doesn't say the pedestrian wasn't crossing against a Don't Walk sign, or jay walking. If the pedestrian is abiding by the law, then it is always the drivers responsability to give way to a pedestrian.
In Europe this isn't so widely accepted, and drivers will often push, intimidate pedestrians who are in the way. Even sometimes when the pedestian has the equivalent of a Green WALK light, ( Glaring at Paris: France ).

[Cat Whisperer]

As a frequent pedestrian in downtown Calgary, I have to add my weight to the pile-on. Recently, I was nearly creamed by a huge truck making a right turn while *I* had the walk light - the bastard looked at me, paused, then went anyway, nearly running over my toes. It's a $500 fine here, too.

I try to always make eye contact with the drivers, so I can get an idea that they know I'm there. I do look and judge the traffic - I know very well that they want to turn, but I waited for my walk light, and I'm going. At uncontrolled intersection, pedestrians still have right-of-way, and I'll go nice and quickly and get out of your way.

Can I add a counter-rant about drivers that drive thisclosetome after barely waiting for me to clear from in front of them? Drivers, *you* know that you won't hit me, but please, show some courtesy, and give pedestrians a little space. It's good for our hearts.

[Rick]

So Iam waiting for a walk signal on evening across from where I worked. The light turned green, and I stepped off the curb. About 3 steps into the cross walk (remember the light had just turned green so I had a walk signal for sure) I find myself being picked up by the back of my legs and flipped over onto my back as I slide across the hood of a Buick. I left the Buick hood near the windshield on the driver's side and landed in a heap.
I was very, very lucky, nothing was broken, sprained, or strained.
I jumped up and started had a conversation with the driver IIRC correctly I said:

"Excuse me madam, but perhaps you did not notice I was in the crosswalk, and was crossing with the green light. You may not be aware of this, but that gives me the right of way, and you should strive to not run me over."

Naw that's not what I said, what I really said )(screamed) was

HEY YOU STUPID BITCH ARE YOU STONED OR ARE YOU STUPID? DON'T YOU EVER BOTHER TO LOOK OUT THAT BIG PIECE OF GLASS THAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU? JESUS FUCKING CHRIST, I HAVE NEVER SEEN SUCH A STUPID PERSON IN MY LIFE AS YOU. IS YOUR FUCKING IQ AND SHOE SIZE THE SAME NUMBER? DIDN'T YOU SEE ME? GODDAMN THAT FUCKING NEW DIET MUST BE WORKING, BECAUSE I'M FUCKING INVISIBLE. I WAS IN A FUCKING CROSS WALK YOU STUPID BITCH AND YOU RAN ME OVER. I DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A FUCKING CHANCE BECAUSE YOU WERE BEHIND ME, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY FUCKING EYES IN THE BACK OF MY HEAD, SHIT FOR BRAINS.
lather rinse repeat for about 5 mintes ending with
"Why don't you get the fuck out of here, before I get really mad at you"

Judging by the look on that lady's face :eek: when I got done I doubt that she has ever made a turn again without looking at the cross walk first. :D
Lame OP rant, very lame

[pulykamell]

I just have to assume drivers are idiots, and never cross in front of a car unless I absolutely know the driver sees me. Sorry, ana, but you fall into the idiot driver category with the attitude expressed in your OP. It's your job to look out for pedestrians, not the other way 'round. It's only because of such inattentive drivers, to put it mildly, that I must assume all drivers are complete and utter buffoons. What you're doing is dangerous, negligent, and irresponsible. Furthermore, shifting the blame to the pedestrian is simply juvenille. Wake up and watch both sides of the road when you're turning.

[GorillaMan]

The general European attitude isn't that pedestrians don't have any rights....but that if you're going to cross the road, you should know enough about traffic to know where to look. So you shouldn't end up crossing in front of any car that's likely to start moving....in the OP's example, if there's no pedestrian crossing, it's far safer to walk fifty yards down the street and cross there, than try to judge the multiple trajectories of a junction.

On the other hand, hitting a pedestrian and claiming 'but I was looking behind me because I was turning' is pretty much a confession. If you're not in a position to know what's in front of you, you shouldn't be moving forwards.

[Anaamika]

:smack: You people are :wally .

I thought I made it clear, I do check. Every fucking time. It's still not smart of you to walk blindly in front of my car, you assholes. For your own fucking sakes. Isn't it just safer for your own ass? I'll tell you, every time I wak down the street and have to cross a parking lot opening, yes, I do walk behind the lead car. Why? Because there always is the remote chance, that he didn't see me, he looked but the glare was in his eyes, it's some little old lady, etc. etc. etc. For my own life.

And for your information, I was turning from a parking lot onto a major road.

Aes, this is not intended toward you.

Jeez Louise, I wasn't mad at the ped, but mad at you guys.

[Alice The Goon]

<insert hugely insulting comment about the OP because I may be a pedestrian in front of her car some day>

I was hit in a crosswalk by someone turning right, and I was RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM. I always make eye contact with the driver, and I really thought I did with him. He was wearing sunglasses, and apparently the eye-contact thing didn't work out for me. Was I still in the wrong, then?

You're the :wally

[Morbo]

I thought I made it clear, I do check. Every fucking time.

No, you didn't make it clear. You said you "studiously" look left, and only "glance" right while "predominantly" looking left. That sounds to me like you barely look right at all.

It's still not smart of you to walk blindly in front of my car, you assholes. For your own fucking sakes. Isn't it just safer for your own ass?

I'm kinda busy watching to make sure vehicles traveling southbound and turning left in front of me don't run me over, while simultaneously making sure other vehicles that have run the stoplight traveling eastbound don't run me over. I don't also simultaneously spin around and look behind me as I walk forward to make sure someone coming out of a parking lot didn't see me during their "glance." I guess that makes me an asshole.

I'll tell you, every time I wak down the street and have to cross a parking lot opening, yes, I do walk behind the lead car. Why? Because there always is the remote chance, that he didn't see me, he looked but the glare was in his eyes, it's some little old lady, etc. etc. etc. For my own life.

And when the southbound traveling car turning left into the parking lot doesn't see you hidden behind the car turning right to head northbound and runs you over, you can shout :wally at yourself until the Ambulance arrives. Then when your small claims suit gets dismissed b/c you were illegally not in the crosswalk you can give yourself a :smack:

[Nightime]

And for your information, I was turning from a parking lot onto a major road.


This doesn't help your case. In fact, it makes it much worse.

If you were turning from a parking lot onto a busy road, then it is ludicrous to suggest a pedestrian go behind you.

The pedestrian has to worry about getting hit by a car turning quickly into the parking lot, and you want them to go behind you so they can't even be seen from the road?

If you had been turning onto a deserted street with a low speed limit then you would have a point.

[danceswithcats]

My vote is against this dogpile. When driving a motor vehicle, it's my responsibility to attempt to not run over mindless assholes who think the world owes them a bulletproof existence. When I'm a pedestrian, it's my responsibility to be aware of vehicles who may not see me, and just might run my ass over if I'm walking along imagining being bulletproof.

Here's to the tale of Billy O'Day
who died observing his right of way.
He was right-quite right as he strode along
and just as dead as if he'd been wrong.

I don't give a tinker's dam what the signals show. If you step off the curb without having made reasonably certain (suggest eye contact) that a turning vehicle is aware of your presence, you're a fool.

[catsix]

Nightime said:
If you were turning from a parking lot onto a busy road, then it is ludicrous to suggest a pedestrian go behind you.

It also means that her car was crossing the sidewalk. Even if you subscribe to the ludicrous idea that pedestrians don't have the right of way when crossing the street although the law says they do, they certainly have the right of way on the sidewalk - it was, after all, provided entirely for their use and the car is the interloper.

[davenportavenger]

I don't give a tinker's dam what the signals show. If you step off the curb without having made reasonably certain (suggest eye contact) that a turning vehicle is aware of your presence, you're a fool.
Sometimes that doesn't matter. I've been nearly run over by laughing frat boys who think it's funny to let me pass almost all the way across the street and then speed up, while honking, their car almost scraping on the back of my leg. And then there's the time I was hit by the girl talking to her friend next to her. I wasn't hurt, but I was really shaken up. It's not about wanting a bulletproof existence, it's about not wanting to be deliberately or carelessly injured by jerks who look right through you because you chose to walk the five blocks to the store instead of loading yourself into a two-ton killing machine. I won't even get into the abuses leveled at bike riders by drivers.

Drivers suck.

[Ichini Sanshigo]

Originally posted by Rick:

So Iam waiting for a walk signal on evening across from where I worked. The light turned green, and I stepped off the curb. About 3 steps into the cross walk (remember the light had just turned green so I had a walk signal for sure) I find myself being picked up by the back of my legs and flipped over onto my back as I slide across the hood of a Buick. I left the Buick hood near the windshield on the driver's side and landed in a heap.
I was very, very lucky, nothing was broken, sprained, or strained.

Ah, Rick, I commiserate. A little over a year ago, on a rainy November evening when I was returning from class, I got hit by a fucking SUV. It was at one of those lights where there's a green arrow for cars trying to turn left. I waited patiently for the light to change to the little white man. Usually, I turn around and check to be sure there'sno assholes trying to race through the light, but I was fucking tired after a day of work and a three hour lecture, and a long wait for and ride on the Red Line and I wanted to go to my nice warm house and fucking sleep, so I just assumed that since the light changed I could cross.

oops.

Out of the corner of my eye I see a big-ass white blur and then me and my Cd player and my batteries are all sprawled across the street. Luckily, nothing was broken, not that it would've mattered sinc I was just too shocked to get any relevant info out of the guy who hit me. Also on the luck side, he had the sense to brake when he saw me, and might not have hit me at all except for the slick streets and the fact that he was speeding through a turn that he had no right to make.

I sorta agree with the OP's position that pedestrians hould check first, but sometimes we just want to get where we're going too, and we don't feel like making eye contact with every driver who may or may not be about to turn or not turn. Nor do we always feel like turning 180 degrees to make sure there's no car bearing down on us from behind.

In short, I'll watch where I'm going if you watch where you're going.

[blowero]

You all assume that the OP was turning right on red. What if it was an intersection with no traffic lights at all?

The pedestrian would still have the right of way, and the driver should still be looking out where she's going, not looking behind her.

[ouryL]

You know, when I'm trying to turn right onto a busy road? And I'm studiously looking left, to see if the way has cleared, and I'm glancing right but predominantly I'm looking left?

Well, it's really stupid to walk in front of my car at this point. I realize I am in the car and you are walking, and it's my responsibility to watch out for you. However, for your own sake, it might be prudent to

a) go around behind me, I drive a Corolla, it's 15 extra steps,

b) kind of glance ahead and judge the traffic: is the traffic clear? Does this person look like she's going to turn?

It's never a good idea to step in front of me without looking, you nimrod!

And I won't swear just because it's the Pit. I'm not nearly irritated enough to swear. Just mildly peeved.


:wally :wally :wally :wally :wally :wally :wally :wally :wally

[Othersider]

I think in general, people should be wary of walking in front of traffic. When I was in Italy, however, they told us if we didn't walk in front of cars, we'd never make it across the street when it's crowded - and it's my impression that it's that way in some other places, as well.

[blowero]

I don't give a tinker's dam what the signals show. If you step off the curb without having made reasonably certain (suggest eye contact) that a turning vehicle is aware of your presence, you're a fool.
Nobody's saying it isn't prudent to make sure the driver sees you; we're saying the OP is wrong to be irritated for something that was entirely her fault.

It's prudent to look over your shoulder when using the ATM at night, too. That doesn't mean it's O.K. to rob people.

[Roland Orzabal]

Okay, how about this.

You're walking up to an intersection at which there is no stoplight, but there are stop signs in all four directions. As you get to the intersection, you see a car barreling down the street you intend to cross. The car is clearly going at least 20 mph over the speed limit, far too fast to be able to stop in time. You then look at the stop sign and, as is your legal right, proceed into the intersection...where you get creamed by the car that had intended to run the stop sign in the first place.

Legally, you're 100% right, and the car is 100% at fault. Realistically, you're an idiot. A dead idiot.

Now, obviously, the situation described in the OP is nowhere near as clear-cut as the above example. Nonetheless, just as the hypothetical stop sign runner's intentions were clear, so too can we guess at the potential motives of a person waiting to pull out onto a street. Yes, it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the way is clear before proceeding. Sometimes, though -- and quite often, if the personal experiences you're all relating are any indication -- that just doesn't happen. So, for one's own safety, it might well be prudent to walk behind the lead car. The main advantage of this is that while the lead driver may well only be paying attention to the traffic flowing from his/her left, one can assume that the driver of the second car is looking straight ahead, watching the lead car in anticipation of it getting out of the way. Even supposing our two drivers are equally single-minded, the second is far more likely to notice you incidentally as you cross his path. Furthermore, it's a pretty safe assumption that the second driver isn't going anywhere at least until the lead car moves, giving you a convenient little window in which to do your street crossin' thang.

None of this absolves either driver from any responsibility, nor does it strip the pedestrian of any rights. It's simply a good idea based on what we know to be true -- drivers don't always pay attention to everything they should. I think that, rather than a change in current right-of-way procedures, is what the OP was suggesting.

Of course, I could be wrong; maybe Anaamika just enjoys mowing down random street-crossers. In which case, may I just point out that it's ever so much easier if you never stop in the first place. Not that I'd know... ;)

[Roland Orzabal]

Nobody's saying it isn't prudent to make sure the driver sees you; we're saying the OP is wrong to be irritated for something that was entirely her fault.

Oops, should've previewed. I want to make it clear that I agree with the quoted statement, to a point. Getting annoyed over an individual incident which, in one's own admission no less, was entirely one's own fault, is a touch disingenuous. My above post was not directed at those who only posted to point that out; rather, it is directed at those who would get all indignant when somebody suggests that they make a largely insignificant modification to a general pattern of behavior in order to avoid specific undesired consequences, such as, say, getting creamed by a two-ton Wad O' Metallic Death.

Having the right to do something does not amount to a real-world guarantee that one may exercise that right 100% of the time with no ill effect. And when the right-violating behavior in question is, by popular testimonial, nigh-ubiquitous, one might do well to be aware of that fact and modify their own behavior in order to avoid being on the receiving end of unpleasantry. To those who would choose not to do so, well, I applaud your decision to stand up for your rights...just don't pretend to be surprised when you're smacked upside the head with the obvious.

[Harborwolf]

And of course pedestrians are never wrong. There isn't a single one of them that doesn't pay attention to what they are doing. Nobody has ever been hit from not watching what cars are doing or walking into the street between parked cars instead of using the crosswalk. :dubious:

Right of way does not automatically equal right. Is it so hard to believe that the pedestrian in this case wasn't paying attention?

I'm not saying that I agree entirely with the op, but imho this dogpile is just as stupid.

[danceswithcats]

Apparently Harborwolf you and I are the sole defenders of the OP.

[Bill H.]

Anaamika wrote
I thought I made it clear, I do check.
No. You were quite clear that you don't check enough. You said "and I'm glancing right but predominantly I'm looking left". If you don't have time to look my direction, you don't have time to drive.
It's still not smart of you to walk blindly in front of my car, you assholes.
You stir such wonderful dreams of how it would be worth it to be mowed down by your crazy ass, just so I could sue you till you bleed.

The least you could do is apologize for such an idiotic OP. Instead, you come back swinging when you're so undeniably, unquestionably and indefensibly wrong.

[Harborwolf]

Anaamika wrote

No. You were quite clear that you don't check enough. You said "and I'm glancing right but predominantly I'm looking left". If you don't have time to look my direction, you don't have time to drive.

You stir such wonderful dreams of how it would be worth it to be mowed down by your crazy ass, just so I could sue you till you bleed.

The least you could do is apologize for such an idiotic OP. Instead, you come back swinging when you're so undeniably, unquestionably and indefensibly wrong.


It's funny. I missed the part in the OP where she said she was a bloodthirsty psychopath looking for orphans and nuns to mow down. Jerk that knee any harder and your shin will fly off.


Seriously, ya'll think that there is no possible way that a pedestrian can make a mistake?

[Scoundrel Swanswater]

The OP is clearly one of the reasons why the Netherlands changed the right-of-ways so that a driver is always in the wrong when he hits a pedestrian or a cyclist.
If I am on foot and cross the street at a red stoplight the driver will still be held responsible for hitting me.
People in cars really should learn to look.
I don't know how many times I have almost been hit by people who just come crawling out of bed or from behind their desk.
You are driving a death-trap and therefore should take all possible precautions not to hit anything or anyone.
This means you have to be 100% alert at all times.
If you aren't, don't fucking drive !!!!!

By the way I drive a motor-scooter and have now for over 20 years and never ever had an accident, because I don't ever assume people notice me.
I have had times where I am driving on a straight road, and some idiot ass-clown comes swerving in from the parallel road without looking.
I am still thinking about putting a big-ass canon on my scooter, so I can fire off some shrapnel at these idiots cars.

[Scoundrel Swanswater]

And of course pedestrians are never wrong. There isn't a single one of them that doesn't pay attention to what they are doing. Nobody has ever been hit from not watching what cars are doing or walking into the street between parked cars instead of using the crosswalk.

Aaaaaargh!!!!!
You are still in the wrong.
The pedestrian isn't driving the big metal death-machine, you are!!!!!

[danceswithcats]

The better part of valor is discretion, in the which better part I have saved my life.
William Shakespeare, King Henry the Fourth, part One

Apparently the Bard was a pedestrian. ;)

[Ephemera]

Aaaaaargh!!!!!
You are still in the wrong.
The pedestrian isn't driving the big metal death-machine, you are!!!!!
Oh, bullshit. I'm convalescing from a broken leg that I got when a guy hit me in a crosswalk and while it was entirely his fault for not seeing me and pulling out when the "Walk" sign gave me the right of way, it's ignorant in the extreme to suggest that it still would have been his fault if I had run across the street when it said "Don't Walk" and he had a green light.

You're insane.

[Exgineer]

While I'm sure everybody is well aware it's the driver's responsibility to avoid the pedestrian and not the other way around, some of the indignant responses in this thread nearly made me laugh out loud.

I especially liked the assumption that Anaamika is some sort of rolling hazard to the lives of pure-hearted, innocent pedestrians who would of course be in the crosswalks, and would never cross against a signal.

That's not reality in Albany. Besides the fact that the crossing signals are a joke, especially downtown (no one can reasonably be expected to cross any street in four seconds, IMHO), nobody pays any attention to them anyway. Crosswalk? No thanks, I'll just duck out from between these parked cars and cross in the middle of the block. I'm stopped in the middle of the street carrying on a conversation? So what? You'll get to move in a few moments when I'm done.

"I'm walking here" is no excuse to behave in an unsafe manner, or abdicate responsibility for your personal safety to someone else. The pedestrian isn't always right.

[CandidGamera]

I'm with Anaamika, and not just because she's funny and entertaining.

I almost did exactly the same thing - in a parking lot, trying to turn out onto a one way street.. a very busy one way street, where every gap in traffic is precious.. I saw my spot and started to nudge the gas, and some guy and exited a nearby bar just strolling along oblivously in front of me. Just barely reined that truck in in time. He could very well have legally walked around my vehicle - he wasn't under a legal obligation to do so, but it would've been smarter.

[JerH]

In parts of Northern Virginia, a lot of intersections now have signs that say "No Turn On Red If Pedestrians Are Present." Not even if they're crossing - if they're even there. T'would be a good rule for all intersections.

[mhendo]

I've never disagreed more with an OP. There's absolutely no excuse whatsoever for not looking into the crosswalk. Try that in San Francisco and you'll get a $500 ticket at best, and a throng of pedestrians beating the crap out of your hood at worst.Heh heh.

My wife is from San Francisco, and the first time i went there with her i saw this happen. It was just before Christmas and the area around Union Square was packed with both cars and pedestrians. We were walking north on Powell Street, and were trying to cross Geary. The "Walk" sign turned green, so we and about 100 other people started to cross. Well, some dickhead in an Audi decided that he didn't want to wait for so many people to cross, so he just started pushing through the throng of people in his car, knocking into people and coming close to running over people's feet. Suddenly, everyone was yelling and screaming at him, and there were about two dozen people bashing the crap out of his hood and trunk. Much to my amusement, my mild-mannered 5'3" wife was among them.Even if you subscribe to the ludicrous idea that pedestrians don't have the right of way when crossing the street although the law says they do, they certainly have the right of way on the sidewalk - it was, after all, provided entirely for their use and the car is the interloper.Yeah, this is another one that chaps my ass. Drivers who think that they have right of way when they're crossing over the sidewalk between the road and a private establishment like a mall or a gas station. Sorry, fucker, that sidewalk was made for pedestrians, and just because they've provided a place for you to cross in your car doesn't mean that you have right of way.

On the general topic of the OP:

Look, as a pedestrian, i realise that i am largely responsible for my own safety, and that if i want to live then i need to be conscious of where, when, and how i cross the road. I make a habit of looking very carefully for cars, and if i jaywalk (which i do quite often), then i make sure that i don't get in the way of moving traffic and that no car has to brake or swerve for me.

And even in cases where i have the absolute and undeniable right-of-way, such as marked crosswalks and green walk signs, i still keep an eye out because Baltimore has well over its quota of homicidal drivers. I realise, as some have suggested, that being in the right is not much consolation if you're dead.

But drivers need to wake the fuck up. If you're turning right, the last place you look before you hit the gas shouldn't be to your left, it should be to your right, so you don't mow someone down. You need to make sure that the gap to your left is large enough for you to look to your right, make sure the way is clear, and then proceed. And if you have a green light, and the pedestrians walking parallel to you also have the green light, that means that you wait for them to cross the road before you make your turn. And if the road has a set of wide parallel white stripes, chances are good that it's not an abstract artwork sponsored by the local gallery—it's a crosswalk, at which you are required to stop for pedestrians.

[Frank]

Anaamika, the only putz around here is you. Sorry, but you need to pay more attention to your driving. There is no reasonable excuse for not knowing what is in front of your car when you press the gas. None.

[Lute Skywatcher]

the "Walk" sign gave me the right of wayThat's technically incorrect. "Walk" signs do not give anyone the right of way; rather, they mean vehicular traffic is to yield their right of way.

BTW: I'm with you, as long as the parking lot exit isn't metered (i.e.: no stop sign or traffic signal). I work in a building with a metered garage exit on what is essentially a one way-street (two-way traffic ends at our building). Many drivers not only don't bother to stop but they also pay little attention to pedestrians. I've been nearly hit while in the middle of the exit by left-turning drivers who evidently didn't bother to consider that pedestrians might be coming from their right.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Sorry, Aesiron, I thought you were Anaamika.

[Ephemera]

I've been called worse.

[tremorviolet]

I thought I made it clear, I do check. Every fucking time. It's still not smart of you to walk blindly (bolding mine) in front of my car, you assholes.

Ok, here's a question, what if the pedestrian is blind? The Texas School for the Blind is here in Austin and we have a fair number of blind pedestrians. They cross when the crosswalk makes a beeping noise telling them it's OK to cross. What about them?

[mhendo]

Ok, here's a question, what if the pedestrian is blind? The Texas School for the Blind is here in Austin and we have a fair number of blind pedestrians. They cross when the crosswalk makes a beeping noise telling them it's OK to cross. What about them?Well, everyone knows that blind people have super hearing. Surely they can listen for the cars? :)

I have a friend who lives in Austin, about a 25 minute bus ride north of downtown, and i've seen TSBVI students on the buses quite a few times. I'll never cease to admire and be amazed by how well blind people get around. For the most part, Austin drivers seem to be pretty conscious of their presence in the city, especially (for obvious reasons) around the school itself.

[blowero]

You're walking up to an intersection at which there is no stoplight, but there are stop signs in all four directions. As you get to the intersection, you see a car barreling down the street you intend to cross. The car is clearly going at least 20 mph over the speed limit, far too fast to be able to stop in time. You then look at the stop sign and, as is your legal right, proceed into the intersection...where you get creamed by the car that had intended to run the stop sign in the first place.

Yeah, and if that DRIVER posted a pit thread chewing out they guy he killed for not getting out of his way, he'd probably get a pretty negative response, just like the OP did here.

Oops, should've previewed. I want to make it clear that I agree with the quoted statement, to a point. Getting annoyed over an individual incident which, in one's own admission no less, was entirely one's own fault, is a touch disingenuous. My above post was not directed at those who only posted to point that out; rather, it is directed at those who would get all indignant when somebody suggests that they make a largely insignificant modification to a general pattern of behavior in order to avoid specific undesired consequences, such as, say, getting creamed by a two-ton Wad O' Metallic Death.

I didn't see anyone saying that. A couple people said they wouldn't walk behind a car that's pulling out of a driveway, for other reasons, but I didn't notice a lot of people disagreeing with the notion that one ought to exercise prudence as a pedestrian. I guess I missed all these posts where people are saying, "I do stupid things on purpose just because I have the right of way."

[blowero]

Seriously, ya'll think that there is no possible way that a pedestrian can make a mistake?
Are we reading the same thread? The PEDESTRIAN was in the right; the DRIVER was in the wrong. A pedestrian can make a mistake, but that's NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

[ouryL]

oh, by the way, that pounding you hear coming from right side of your hood is me trying to get your attention. I never cross if the driver's eyes are not on me. :wally

[Exgineer]

Are we reading the same thread? The PEDESTRIAN was in the right; the DRIVER was in the wrong.
How the hell do you know? You have nowhere near enough information to make this statement.

I read the OP again, and saw no mention of traffic signals, crosswalks, crossing signals, or right-on-red turns. All of those things were added by later posters who were just wildly speculating. Have you seen the intersection? Do you really know if there was even a sidewalk there, let alone the other stuff?

I walk through this town every day, and every day I see some of my fellow pavement pounders do some incredibly stupid shit. Some of them are just begging to be hit. Around here if you see a "No Pedetrian Traffic" sign you can't trust it. Where there's no sidewalk you can be sure that some mope will be ambling along in the roadway.

Last year I was at an intersection where there were no sidewalks in any direction and some dipstick hopped over the fence and trotted across the road, and he sure as hell didn't stop and look both ways.

You can't plan for idiots.

[Lute Skywatcher]

You can't plan for idiots.This is why it's impossible to make anything idiot proof. Someone always makes a better idiot.

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip>
You can't plan for idiots.
As a driver, you kinda have to. I can't plan for someone coming out of nowhere and running across the road, but if I can see them, I have to imagine them doing the stupidest thing imaginable and be ready for it, because I don't want to hurt or kill anyone with my car. As a driver, I need to be aware of everything around me all the time - what's going on on the sidewalks and pathways as well as on the road. Those two kids pushing each other while waiting for the bus - they're obviously not trying to cross the road, but I'm going to keep my eye on them anyway.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

To be fare the OP doesn't say the pedestrian wasn't crossing against a Don't Walk sign, or jay walking. If the pedestrian is abiding by the law, then it is always the drivers responsability to give way to a pedestrian.
In Europe this isn't so widely accepted, and drivers will often push, intimidate pedestrians who are in the way. Even sometimes when the pedestian has the equivalent of a Green WALK light, ( Glaring at Paris: France ).


I'm pretty sure that the driver of a car that struck a jaywalking pedestrian could still face tickets/charges depending on how badly injured the person was. It is the driver's responsibility to take action to avoid ANY kind of accident, and to avoid causing injury. If they tried, and couldn't prevent the accident, or truly had no chance to avoid what happened, that's a different thing. However, if they were reckless and caused injury, I'd think there would be some kind of charges or a ticket they could get. Reckless driving at the least.

[blowero]

How the hell do you know?

How do YOU know the pedestrian was WRONG?

You have nowhere near enough information to make this statement.

I read the OP again, and saw no mention of traffic signals, crosswalks, crossing signals, or right-on-red turns.

She was "turning from a parking lot onto a major road". Unless she had a protected green turn arrow, it was her responsibility to yield to pedestrians. If the pedestrian was illegally crossing on a red light, and she neglected to tell us that, that's hardly my fault. She admitted that it was her responsibility. If it was a protected turn, and she somehow inexplicably forgot to mention it, that would be completely inconsistent with her statement that she was checking to the left for traffic.

While that may not be enough information for you, it is enough for those of us with moderate reasoning skills.

All of those things were added by later posters who were just wildly speculating. Have you seen the intersection? Do you really know if there was even a sidewalk there, let alone the other stuff?

Whether there was a sidewalk is irrelevant, numbskull.

I'm sorry, but as I said, there is NO excuse for not looking in the direction your car is travelling.

I walk through this town every day, and every day I see some of my fellow pavement pounders do some incredibly stupid shit. Some of them are just begging to be hit.

But we're not talking about that.

Last year I was at an intersection where there were no sidewalks in any direction and some dipstick hopped over the fence and trotted across the road, and he sure as hell didn't stop and look both ways.

Are you intending to write "crosswalks" when you write "sidewalks"? It makes no sense the way you have written it.

[Dante]

You're lucky I don't fucking walk ON your car if you leave it in the middle of the fucking crosswalk while you wait for your break in traffic...
Did this about a month ago. Taxis in Toronto are notorious for nosing into pedestrian traffic. So I stepped onto his front tire (extremely stupid if he starts moving), then onto his hood, across the hood (did I mention I'm wearing heavy snow boots) and jump down off the other side. One guy caught up to me after and said "Man, I'd love to do that!"

That event was precipitated by having been hit by a taxi only days before. He was trying to get around me while I was crossing on a green light, and his passenger side mirror hit my right arm. Left a nice bruise too. I relieved him of his mirror (heavy boots again).

With respect to the OP, I think you're dead wrong, but at the same time, I always keep my eye on traffic, and I never assume they've seen me.

[Troy McClure SF]

As a San Francisco driver (quite an aggressive one at that) and a pedestrian, I'd like to chime in to say that the OP is a douchebag.

Carry on.

[Harborwolf]

How do YOU know the pedestrian was WRONG?


I don't know whether or not the pedestrian was wrong. I don't know whether or not Anaamika was wrong. I honestly don't know shit about the whole incident other than what anaamika posted. I wasn't going to even post in this thread.

Then I saw the vast teeming hordes rushing to the conclusion that that Anaamika, drunk from whiskey and the power of driving one of these new fangled two ton engines of death (all I've gots is a pick up with a v6. I want an engine of death :( ), was careening around her neighborhood like it was Grand Theft Auto. How do we know this? Because we know that pedestrians have the right of way and thusly would never do something stupid. :dubious:

I'm really wondering how the rest of you know who was wrong in this case. Blowero, you can answer first since you seem so sure.

[Stranger On A Train]

Here in Pasadena, on Colorado Blvd. in Old Town, we have diagonal crosswalks. That is, you get a cycle where on one step motor traffic goes north-south, a step where motor traffic goes east-west, AND THEN a step where motor traffic stops and pedestrians can walk in basically any direction they please.

Oh, that works. :rolleyes:

On a busy weekend day, there's always some asshole in a car that decides he can turn on a red light and sort of dodge between crossing peds. Now, there is no sign specifically telling you that you can't make a right on red, but charlie-brown-on-a-swizzle-stick, people are walkin' here, can't you wait twenty frickin' seconds until the light changes?

OTOH, pedestrians are always not paying attention to their signals and trying to cross when the traffic light is green but the walk sign is red. They're usually yacking away on their cellphones, of course. Dipshits.

The OP is legally in the wrong, but it's not always easy to see pedestrians, especially when they dart out from from behind a signals box, or if you're trying to time traffic coming the other way. If you're a pedestrian, show a little common sense and consideration, and make eye contact. (If you're blind, as tremorviolet mentions, then make sure you're as visible as possible.) And if you're a driver, realize that you are pushing three thousand-plus pounds of metal and glass, and take the extra second to check both ways, again, before you turn.

This world would be a lot better off if people would stop dogmatically insisting on what is right and show a little awareness and consideration. I run on public streets (well, mostly on the sidewalks) frequently, and I always make certain a driver sees me before crossing in front, or run around the back if they're pulled out and trying to see into oncoming traffic.

At least, as a ped, be thankful you aren't inciting the unmitigated, irrational fury drivers seem to have for bicyclists. And I won't even begin to address the contempt that motorboaters have for kayaks and small sailcraft.

Stranger

[Phelan]

I've seen stupid things done by both pedestrian and driver here. First pedestrians; when there is an advanced green light, only cars going in one direction may go. This way drivers going left in one direction, will get a chance to go and expect to have a clear turn, and the other drivers going in the same direction will go straight. Once in awhile I'll see a large group of people just start walking right when the advanced green starts, and put themselves in danger because the driver is expecting nobody to be there.

Now drivers; I usually freeze when I don't have eye contact with the driver, and 98% of the time they'll look up and see me and wave me on, but if I didn't stop for the 2%, then my kneecaps would be a sore sight. Yesterday I almost got hit twice in one light though; I was three quarters of the way across when a person turning right cut it close and almost nicked me, THEN THE PERSON BEHIND HER went and brushed me with the mirror, THEN THE PERSON BEHIND THEM went but around behind me and I had to speed up my pace to not be hit! It's like Frogger out there sometimes. :eek:

[Giles]

It's never a good idea to step in front of me without looking, you nimrod!
I have a question to Anaamika: How does she know the pedestrian did not look, when she wasm't looking at the pedestrian? As far as we can tell, the pedestrian walked along the side of the street, saw Anaamika's car stopped on the driveway onto the busy road, saw that the road was busy, looked again at Anaamika's car and saw it was still stopped, and walked in front of it, assuming that a driver would not start moving without making sure there was nothing in front of her.

Yes, I know she was busy looking left, but a driver always has a duty to look in front to see if there is anything there before moving off. Always. Even if she has a green light, just in case a little old lady has been a bit slow in clearing the cross walk. Always.

It's different if your car is moving, because something can jump in front of you without warning, but in this story Anaamika's car had stopped to check for traffic on the busy street, and the pedestrian had a right to expect that it would not start moving again without the driver looking to her front.

[blowero]

Here in Pasadena, on Colorado Blvd. in Old Town, we have diagonal crosswalks. That is, you get a cycle where on one step motor traffic goes north-south, a step where motor traffic goes east-west, AND THEN a step where motor traffic stops and pedestrians can walk in basically any direction they please.

Oh, that works. :rolleyes:

Oh, man is that ever stupid. When the light's green for the cars, people try to cross, so the cars can't get through. Then, when the walk signal is green, the cars try to go through. What a disaster. So's the fact that they put in random turn lanes all over Union St., causing a confusing mess of bottlenecks, but took out the turn lane from Union going right on Fair Oaks, which is the busiest intersection. But I digress...

The OP is legally in the wrong, but it's not always easy to see pedestrians, especially when they dart out from from behind a signals box, or if you're trying to time traffic coming the other way. If you're a pedestrian, show a little common sense and consideration, and make eye contact. (If you're blind, as tremorviolet mentions, then make sure you're as visible as possible.) And if you're a driver, realize that you are pushing three thousand-plus pounds of metal and glass, and take the extra second to check both ways, again, before you turn.

But that's not the case here. She SAID she was looking over her LEFT shoulder when she was turning right. Yeah, if someone darts out in front of you, then it's excusable for you to be surprised. But if you AREN'T LOOKING WHERE YOU'RE GOING, it's not excusable. The problem didn't occur because the pedestrian darted out, it occurred because the driver wasn't looking.

The reason I'm making a big deal about this is because I see this happen all the time. I see drivers every day who are busy looking over their shoulder in the opposite direction from the direction their car is moving. I shouldn't HAVE to stop walking and wait to make eye contact with the idiot driver who can't be bothered to look where he's going, but I do. People have to stop driving like this. It's extremely dangerous. Hell, half the drivers I see can't even be bothered to stop AT ALL when they turn right on a red light. It's just disgusting.

This world would be a lot better off if people would stop dogmatically insisting on what is right and show a little awareness and consideration.

This world would be a lot better off if people would get a clue and start taking reponsibility for the way they drive, and stop blaming it on others.

[blowero]

I'm really wondering how the rest of you know who was wrong in this case. Blowero, you can answer first since you seem so sure.
Already answered. Did you not read my post? Sometimes, the vast teeming hordes are right.

[Lute Skywatcher]

It's different if your car is moving, because something can jump in front of you without warning, but in this story Anaamika's car had stopped to check for traffic on the busy street, and the pedestrian had a right to expect that it would not start moving again without the driver looking to her front.I'd say it also depends on where her car was stopped. If she had already ventured into territory where one would expect pedestrians, it would be prudent for those pedestrians to either wait or cross behind her car. Stepping in front of her car would not only put them in danger of being hit by her as she accellerated but also by those in the street which are likely to be moving much faster than Anaamika would.

[Harborwolf]

Already answered. Did you not read my post? Sometimes, the vast teeming hordes are right.

Of course, if you'd read the OP you'd see this phrase too.

It's never a good idea to step in front of me without looking, you nimrod!

So he wasn't looking either. People make mistakes, even pedestrians.

[Stranger On A Train]

Oh, man is that ever stupid. When the light's green for the cars, people try to cross, so the cars can't get through. Then, when the walk signal is green, the cars try to go through. What a disaster. So's the fact that they put in random turn lanes all over Union St., causing a confusing mess of bottlenecks, but took out the turn lane from Union going right on Fair Oaks, which is the busiest intersection. But I digress...
And not to mention running the Gold Line right down the middle with signals that often jam up, resulting in huge backlogs of traffic on Del Mar and California, the only two exits off of that 210 spur. But now I digress.

I shouldn't HAVE to stop walking and wait to make eye contact with the idiot driver who can't be bothered to look where he's going, but I do. People have to stop driving like this. It's extremely dangerous. Hell, half the drivers I see can't even be bothered to stop AT ALL when they turn right on a red light. It's just disgusting.
People aren't going to stop driving like this (and especially not California drivers who are makin' deals and hookin' up 24/7/365/whatever :rolleyes: ) any more than motorboastistas are going to stop blasting by my kayak at 12 knots in a No Freaking Wake Zone and making me practice my bracing skills. As a kayaker, I just have to be aware, stay to the side, or prefereably outside, of the throughway, and prepare to brace or roll when one of these dickless wonders comes blasting throw Newport Bay. Right, wrong, or otherwise, you're just as dead when some bimbo in an H2 rolls over you.

Stranger

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip>At least, as a ped, be thankful you aren't inciting the unmitigated, irrational fury drivers seem to have for bicyclists. And I won't even begin to address the contempt that motorboaters have for kayaks and small sailcraft.

Stranger
As a driver, I've had cyclists yell at me when I thought I was being courteous, and as a ped, I've had cyclists yell at me when they were the ones breaking about 5 laws at once. Let's face it, we're all assholes.

[blowero]

People aren't going to stop driving like this (and especially not California drivers who are makin' deals and hookin' up 24/7/365/whatever :rolleyes: )
Your words are true. Again, nobody's questioning the wisdom of being a prudent pedestrian. If you thought that was my point, you didn't understand me at all.

[blowero]

Of course, if you'd read the OP you'd see this phrase too.



So he wasn't looking either. People make mistakes, even pedestrians.
You're a moron.:rolleyes:

[GorillaMan]

If she had already ventured into territory where one would expect pedestrians, it would be prudent for those pedestrians to either wait or cross behind her car.
Prudent, maybe. But not nearly as prudent as looking in the direction you're making your car move. Would you argue it was OK for her to reverse while looking straight ahead?

[Mr. Miskatonic]

This is the most deserved pile-on of an OP I have ever witnessed. The OP demonstrates cager-syndrome at its worst and I'm glad to see the vast majority see her for the asshat she is being.

For the record, I've been hit twice by right-turning cars and 'almost hit' 1/2 dozen more times. In each case I had the right of way. In fairness, one of the hits I actually was able to jump up and land hard on the car's hood. Manged to be OK from that one, and left a nice crease on the hood. Guy wanted to bitch at me (after I got off his hood), I said call the police and you can tell them what happened. The bozo drove off in a huff, gunning his engine and then screeching to a halt at the next red light.

And for those trying to blame the pedestrians I'll say this: Incidents where pedestrians are at fault for being hit are very rare. Incidents were pedstrian hit and injure drivers are non-existant. You drive the car, you have the murder weapon, thus you have the responsibility. Driving course in the USA have explained from day 1 that it is your job to keep your machine from killing people on the road. Blaming any near-victims is assinine.

[Rick]

Of course, if you'd read the OP you'd see this phrase too.

[quoteIt's never a good idea to step in front of me without looking, you nimrod!

So he wasn't looking either. People make mistakes, even pedestrians.[/QUOTE]
Silly question here.
how the fuck could she know that the nimrod in question (NIQ) did not look, when by her own admission And I'm studiously looking left, to see if the way has cleared, and I'm glancing right but predominantly I'm looking left?
Eyes in the back of her head perhaps? Obviously she did not glance often enough. She never saw the guy, so how does she know that he did not look?

[Harborwolf]

Hey, this is fun. Half of what Anaamika says is entirely true, and half of what she says can't be trusted. Must make life easier when you can just pick and choose what to believe on a sentence by sentence basis.

[OtakuLoki]

I'm jumping on the anti-dogpile, here.

I don't disagree that the pedestrian has the right of way. He or she does.

Anaamika never said that she didn't have the responsibility to avoid the accident. And from what I saw in the OP, she is well aware that she has the legal and moral responsibility to avoid pedestrian traffic. However, having the right of way doesn't make an accident [i]feel[i] any better. I have a friend in the NYC area who keeps giving me heart attacks because he walks out into the street without looking, because he has the right of way. I can't understand that reasoning. Being a little paranoid about them big multi-ton death machines is smart. If I don't have eye contact with a driver, I don't walk in front of the car. It may take me a little longer to get where I'm going, but damn it's better than being stuck like Aesiron.

And, no, I'm not saying Aesiron did anything wrong, or could have avoided his accident - I'm just saying I'm paranoid, and using a pretty ugly example of a potential consequence of letting my paranoia slip. Comes of having grown up with Massachusetts drivers, I think.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Would you argue it was OK for her to reverse while looking straight ahead?As long as it would be reasonable to expect there won't be anything to hit. As has been said, pedestrians have no protection, ergo it would be reasonable to expect them to not put themselves at risk of being struck by fast moving traffic. If a car is astride a crosswalk while waiting for a gap in traffic in order to complete a turn, it would be reasonable to expect there won't be any pedestrians putting themselves at risk by crossing in front.

[Stranger On A Train]

Okay, here's a scenerio for you:

This morning I'm pulling out of my drive. Now, I live in one of these turn of the century houses that's been chopped up into apartments; there's no yard or empty space to speak of. My drive runs between the house and a the 10ft tall hedge next door that sits smack up against the bungalows that line the next lot. On the other side of the drive there's a middling hedge that won't conceal adults but could hide pets or children (not an academic point as there is a grade school directly across the street.) The drive itself is very narrow, with bare inches to spare on either side. The hedges run right out to the side walk.

So, my usual procedure is to scream down the drive at maximum overdrive velocity (about 5 mph) and slow to a rolling stop at I approach the sidewalk crossing. I then roll out with almost imperceivable otiosity until I can see both ways down the sidewalk. I can't do any better without using a periscope.

So, this morning, and this is far from the first time this sort of thing has happened, I have some old fart walking his fricken' Pomeranian walk right in front of my car as it is inching it's way forward. By the time I see the actual guy I've practically got the heedless dog under my axle and the guy is yelling and giving me a gesture that I assumed wasn't intended to indicate that I was #1 in his book.

Now, gramps, you saw my g'd'm hood sticking way out there for at least several seconds. You know there's a drive there. You let your little bitty dog way the hell in front of you with one of those Extend-A-Leash things, and you're trying to tell me what anatomically impossible things I should do to myself?

If I'd have run the dog down, not only would I be technically in the wrong, I'd also feel terrible, even if it was a Pomeranian, which, for the record, is the world's most useless example of Canis familiaris. I suspect, or at least hope, that I'd probably get a pass, legally, based on the fact that this guy was an absolute, consummate, balls-on-the-block, card carrying moron, but there's no guarantee of that.

It's a three-sigma example, to be sure, but it happens to me on a regular basis. (And no, the rental management company won't install a mirror.) Peds need to show some common sense, just as drivers need to show a lot more restraint. Accidents are not often the exclusive result of one person's negligence.

Stranger

[Giles]

... this is far from the first time this sort of thing has happened ...
... it happens to me on a regular basis.
If it's not an isolated incident, then you know you have to be more careful. It is not the pedestrian's faiult (or the dog's fault) if you drive onto a footpath without being able to see what is on it. If you really cannot see, then those repeated incidents should tell you that you cannot use that driveway with that car.

[blowero]

If a car is astride a crosswalk while waiting for a gap in traffic in order to complete a turn, it would be reasonable to expect there won't be any pedestrians putting themselves at risk by crossing in front.
You know, Lute - every time I think you can't possibly say anything more asinine, you always surprise me.

[blowero]

It's a three-sigma example, to be sure, but it happens to me on a regular basis. (And no, the rental management company won't install a mirror.) Peds need to show some common sense, just as drivers need to show a lot more restraint. Accidents are not often the exclusive result of one person's negligence.

Stranger
But what does your story have to do with the OP's story? She admitted that she was looking predominantly left and only glancing right. If you admitted you weren't looking in the direction you were driving, I'd fault you too. But that's not what you said, so your story is irrelevant to the case at hand.

Have you submitted your request for mirrors in writing? I bet if you made the management understand that it's a potential liability issue for them, and had a written record that you had asked them for the mirrors, they'd change their tune, because they could get creamed in court if someone got hurt.

[Lute Skywatcher]

If you really cannot see, then those repeated incidents should tell you that you cannot use that driveway with that car.No, it should tell the rental management company to either install a mirror or do something about the hedge. Not everyone has access to an FC-150 (http://www.yuccaman.com/jeep/image/fc150.jpg).You know, Lute - every time I think you can't possibly say anything more asinine, you always surprise me.You're misunderstanding me again. Pedestrians shouldn't be crossing in front because of the greater danger posted by the fast moving traffic, not because of the lower danger presented by the turning driver.

Of course, if the crosswalk is at a metered intersection and there are pedestrians nearby, the car has no business being astride it in the first place.

[Stranger On A Train]

If it's not an isolated incident, then you know you have to be more careful. It is not the pedestrian's faiult (or the dog's fault) if you drive onto a footpath without being able to see what is on it. If you really cannot see, then those repeated incidents should tell you that you cannot use that driveway with that car.
There is no way I can be more careful. I cannot see around corners. I cannot drive any slower. I can't stop, get out of my car, and check around the corner (hedges on both sides block the doors.) The management company refuses to put up a mirror, citing city ordinances regarding the placement of posts or scaffolding on the road side of the sidewalk. I can't park on the street on my block or the next, as there is almost never a space open in a parking zone. I make every reasonable precaution to prevent an accident, but if someone steps right out in front of me without looking or noticing that this big, rumbling thing with lights on the front is inching it's way forward, well, I don't know how they've gotten this far in life without living in a bubble. I've seen people walk right in the path of a lorry as it was pulling into a drive as if it weren't even there. Yes, the lorry has to stop, even if that means it gets t-boned or rear-ended 'cause it's sticking out in the street. But it was the oblivious idiot who walked in front of the truck that is causing the hazard, not the driver.

I don't deny that the OP may well have been negligent or is unjustified in her fustruation, but I'm irked by the general consensus that a pedestrian has 0% responsibility for his or her own safety. If I'm in a marked school zone, I have a responsibility to slow down, but if a kid suddenly runs right out in front of me, he is at fault for creating a situation in which an accident can happen, even if the law says I'm to be penalized. I have a responsibility to drive slowly enough that I can reasonably expect to stop if this happens, but if the kid practically dives under the car (and I've seen this) there's little a driver can do to prevent contact. That's why we teach kids to look both ways, and again, before crossing the street. This idea that you don't need to make eye contact or in any way be concerned that the driver be aware of your presence may be lung-inflatingly righteous but it isn't "right".

In driving, I've had the occasion where someone has been standing just so, right in line with my A-pillar, or has blended in with the background, or is walking around a sharp corner. Occasional inattentiveness happens, even to those of us who don't talk on the phone or fiddle with the CD changer while driving, and a single slip, a flash of sun in the eyes, a sudden movement on the other side of your vision can lead to a hazardous situation. Pedestrians shouldn't have to worry about drivers driving on the sidewalk, and should have an expectation that they be able to cross at marked crosswalks and with the signals without overarching concern, but it is the wise grasshopper who assumes that drivers are unobservant and exercises due diligence when entering "car space".

And if someone wants to claim that they've never had an inattentive second behind the wheel, well, I'll entertain the notion, but I'm going to have to be presented some extra-ordinary evidence for this superhuman feat of concentration and observation.

Stranger

[mhendo]

Of course, if the crosswalk is at a metered intersection and there are pedestrians nearby, the car has no business being astride it in the first place.Actually, if it's a marked crosswalk (whether or not the intersection is metered) the car has no business being astride it in the first place.

[Lute Skywatcher]

What I don't get is why people are interpreting the looking left/glancing right thing as not watching where she's going. She was driving a Toyota, not a tank; Toyotas are incapable of turning in place.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Actually, if it's a marked crosswalk (whether or not the intersection is metered) the car has no business being astride it in the first place.Sorry, I was using "crosswalk" to mean any point where a sidewalk is interrupted by pavement.

[Bookkeeper]

This is why it's impossible to make anything idiot proof. Someone always makes a better idiot.

"Any time someone develops an idiot-proof device, Nature evolves a new and improved idiot."

[Lute Skywatcher]

BTW: I've been a pedestrian in a situation similar to the OP's. The driver was coming off a side street onto the main road, sort of a "T" intersection where the side street is half the bar and the main road forms an "L". The driver stopped at the sign and I figured it was safe to cross in front of him, then I catch movement in the corner of my eye and looked around to see the driver stopping again. Evidently, he was only looking for oncoming traffic before proceeding straight ahead onto the main road. He shrugged, I shrugged, and we both went on our merry way.

[GorillaMan]

As long as it would be reasonable to expect there won't be anything to hit.
But the whole point is that the real world doesn't work like that! Pedestrians make mistakes, or do stupid things - and you seem to be assuming that it's only adults we're talking about, unless you think a two-year-old will know whether to walk in front of a particular stationary car. And when reversing, it's never reasonable to assume that there's nothing there. Hell, plenty of people manage to reverse into stationary objects because they weren't fully observant.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Pedestrians make mistakes, or do stupid thingsAgreed.and you seem to be assuming that it's only adults we're talking about,You're assuming that Ana wasn't looking where she was going. Where did she say she was still looking left when she pulled into the street?unless you think a two-year-old will know whether to walk in front of a particular stationary car.What two-year-olds go walking near a busy street by themselves?[i]And when reversing, it's never reasonable to assume that there's nothing there."Never" doesn't always apply.

[Harborwolf]

I can tell you why it's also the pedestrians fault in this.

1) If he looked, and saw Anaamika looking mostly left, then he took the chance that he could make it himself. Walking in front of a turning car when you see the driver hasn't noticed you is a mistake.

2) He didn't look and, not knowing that Anaamika hadn't seen him, crossed anyways. Crossing in front of a car without looking to see if a driver hasn't noticed you is a mistake.

3) He had just paid money to see Racing Stripes and wanted to end it all. :p

In any case, the pedestrian made a mistake too. Either he didn't look to see if Anaamika noticed him and went anyway or he did notice and figured that he could chance it.

[ParentalAdvisory]

Around here, failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk when the little white man is all lit up can result in the driver being hit with a $500 fine.

And hopefully, the same pedestrian will get a $500 fine if he jay walks through the little red man?

[blowero]

Crossing in front of a car without looking to see if a driver hasn't noticed you is a mistake.

Depends what you mean by "mistake". In the sense that it's wiser to make sure you catch any driver's eye before walking in front of his car, yes. In a legal, who has the right-of-way sense, it is not per se a mistake.

This reminds me of a couple of recent threads about rape. A very clear distinction was made between advising women that it's prudent not to be alone in dangerous neighborhoods, etc., and implying that it is in any way a woman's fault if she is raped. The 2 concepts are wildly different. Having a thing be prudent, and having it be your fault if you didn't do it are not the same.

[Lute Skywatcher]

And hopefully, the same pedestrian will get a $500 fine if he jay walks through the little red man?No idea; they only posted the "failure to yield" signs.

[amarinth]

a) go around behind me, I drive a Corolla, it's 15 extra steps,
That way, when my car rolls back into you on the hill, I can drive away more quickly.

[blowero]

To make an analogy, I will often often check both directions before crossing a street, even if it's a one way street, because drivers sometimes mistakenly drive the wrong way. But if a driver hits me going the wrong way, he's still 100% at fault.

[Lute Skywatcher]

To make an analogy, I will often often check both directions before crossing a street, even if it's a one way street, because drivers sometimes mistakenly drive the wrong way.As do I. Now if only we ccould get all the drivers to look both ways before pulling into a one-way street. Pedestrians have a habit of travelling in either direction.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

And hopefully, the same pedestrian will get a $500 fine if he jay walks through the little red man?

When the pedestrian is capable of killing the driver of the car by impact your point will be valid.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Now if only we ccould get all the drivers to look both ways before pulling into a one-way street.Just so everyone's clear, I was referring to drivers who only look in the direction of oncoming traffic when crossing a sidewalk area.

[GorillaMan]

Agreed.You're assuming that Ana wasn't looking where she was going.
Errrr, because she was "studiously looking left" (in the OP)


Where did she say she was still looking left when she pulled into the street?
What two-year-olds go walking near a busy street by themselves?
Didn't say that. But they have a tendency to run about a little more than is predictable. So it's a good idea for people to look where they're directing their half-ton of steel.

"Never" doesn't always apply.
I maintain it is NEVER prudent to assume there's nothing in the way of your vehicle. As has been said repeatedly - if you don't know what's there, don't direct your vehicle towards it. It's perfectly possible to look in other directions to make sure you're not on a collision course with other people, without jeopardising the most important aspect of controling a vehicle. The OP explicitly described a situation where this was not the case.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Errrr, because she was "studiously looking left" (in the OP)That doesn't mean she didn't turn to look where she was going.

[GorillaMan]

That doesn't mean she didn't turn to look where she was going.
It certainly sounds like she wasn't paying enough attention to the place her car was moving towards. Especially when she also says she was "glancing" forward.

Imagine this one: "Yes, Officer, I was trying to tune the radio, but I was also glancing at the road".

[Tool]

I've done a bit of car control school. I can't imagine why some of you don't know some of that training. How to handle an apex, heal and toe. Fuxkin' nwbies.

[Lute Skywatcher]

It certainly sounds like she wasn't paying enough attention to the place her car was moving towards. Especially when she also says she was "glancing" forward. No, she says she was glancing to the right. Cars go forward, not right.

[Stranger On A Train]

When the pedestrian is capable of killing the driver of the car by impact your point will be valid.
A pedestrian who steps out into traffic and causes a pile-up is quite capable of killing the driver or someone else. Peds need to follow the law just as drivers do, and for just the same reasons.

Stranger

I never jaywalk. Well almost never. For all practical purposes. I mean, only once or twice a week. On average.

[GorillaMan]

No, she says she was glancing to the right. Cars go forward, not right.
Pedestrians come from the right and left. Cars turn to the right and to the left.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Cars turn to the right and to the left.While moving forward. Cars do not normally turn in place.

[GorillaMan]

While moving forward. Cars do not normally turn in place.
Cars that begin to move forward, whether right or left, while pedestrians are in front are dangerous. That's why it's the driver's responsibility to make sure that before they move, the way is clear. How many more twists can you make before you give up?

[Lute Skywatcher]

Cars that begin to move forward, whether right or left, while pedestrians are in front are dangerous. That's why it's the driver's responsibility to make sure that before they move, the way is clear.Again, Ana didn't say anything about not looking forward. Which is where a pedestrian would be if the way isn't clear.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Remember, I've encountered a driver who didn't look to his right. He did look forward, notice me, and stopped in time. One can presume that's also the sort of incident described in the OP.

[GorillaMan]

[quo=Lutete]Ana didn't say anything about not looking forward[/quote]

I'm glancing right but predominantly I'm looking left?
Seems to me an obvious admission that she's paying scant attention to the direction she'd choosing to drive into.

[Voyager]

And hopefully, the same pedestrian will get a $500 fine if he jay walks through the little red man?
It isn't $500 bucks, but it does cost you. When I first visited California, I was astonished that pedestrians actually obeyed crosswalks, and most drivers did also. Coming from New York, I'm used to hordes of walkers intimidating cars.

BTW, from news reports I read, if a car hits a pedestrian coming out from between parked cars (and assuming that he didn't emege when the car was half a block away) the car is not considered to be at fault. That isn't the case for the OP.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Seems to me an obvious admission that she's paying scant attention to the direction she'd choosing to drive into.Yes, she's paying scant attenton to where she's going to turn. The key words being "going to". If she was still looking left while turning, there wuold be no argument from me. We just don't have that information.

[Mr. Miskatonic]

A pedestrian who steps out into traffic and causes a pile-up is quite capable of killing the driver or someone else. [/SIZE]

Please list the incidents where a jaywalking pedestrian (on a road they are normally allowed upon) has caused such pile-ups.

[GorillaMan]

Yes, she's paying scant attenton to where she's going to turn. The key words being "going to". If she was still looking left while turning, there wuold be no argument from me. We just don't have that information.
It can be inferred from the fact that the OP exists at all. If, before pulling away, she returned her attention to the direction of motion, she wouldn't be so surprised to see the 'obstruction'. But you're ducking the point, anyway, when you earlier defended setting a car in motion without looking, purely because you wouldn't expect there to be a pedestrian in the way.

[Annie-Xmas]

The driver is not only in a climate controlled room-on-wheels, but one that will get them there three to five times faster than I can walk. Yet, when I have the right of way, I'm suppose to wait for the turning cars? SHEESH!

I was once crossing in the cross walk with a green light when some driver started pulling into the cross walk and damn near hit me. When I called her a stupid asshole, she responded "The sun got in my eyes. I couldn't see the light. That doesn't make me an asshole."

[ParentalAdvisory]

When the pedestrian is capable of killing the driver of the car by impact your point will be valid.

Well this is great news! Do you know how much money municipal districts will save because we don't need the 'don't walk' lights anymore?

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Well this is great news! Do you know how much money municipal districts will save because we don't need the 'don't walk' lights anymore?

Ah, so those are there so that pedestrians do not kill drivers.

Here I thought they were in place so that there would be regular periods when the pedestrians could safely and legally cross streets. Nope! Turns out that death by pedestrian is the major concern!

Apparently my 170 lbs. frame is a nightmare to the poor folks wrapped in 2 tons of metal! Who knew they were so defenseless.

[Stranger On A Train]

Apparently my 170 lbs. frame is a nightmare to the poor folks wrapped in 2 tons of metal! Who knew they were so defenseless.
It is if your 170 lb frame suddenly and unlawfully crosses into traffic, causing the driver to veer in avoidence into the oncoming lane or into a telephone pole.

Why the insistance that pedestrians need not be penelized for obeying the law just as drivers are (or ought to be)? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

Stranger

[Mr. Miskatonic]

It is if your 170 lb frame suddenly and unlawfully crosses into traffic, causing the driver to veer in avoidence into the oncoming lane or into a telephone pole.

Why the insistance that pedestrians need not be penelized for obeying the law just as drivers are (or ought to be)? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

Stranger

I never said jaywalking was should not be finable, I objected to the idea that the pedestrian should be fined as much as a car that fails to yield to a pedestrian with the right of way. But I am certain some folks are enjoying sodomizing the strawman too much to care.

Its simple: Cars hit pedestrians. They kill them. Hence the $500 fine.

Pedestrians also get fined for jaywalking. The fine need not $500. Why? Because pedestrians can't kill drivers by hitting the car with their body.

[ParentalAdvisory]

Pedestrians also get fined for jaywalking. The fine need not $500. Why? Because pedestrians can't kill drivers by hitting the car with their body.

Size, and ability to kill are irrelevant in this case. What about respect for the law on both sides?

If a pedestrian has the go for the walk light, and a driver fails to yield, then yes, the driver should be fined.

If a pedestrian doesn't have the go for the walk light, and takes it upon themselves to walk aimlessly in front of moving traffic, the pedestrian should get the same fine.

What if a pedestrian jaywalks, and a car hits him? If the pedestrian is lucky enough to get away with minimal injury, it still wastes time for everyone involved. Court costs, lawyers fees, ticket fines... It seems a $500 fine for a pedestrian crossing the walk while the walk light is red, seems justifiable.

[CanvasShoes]

Don't take this personally, because all I'm doing is taking advantage of the Pit environment when I say:

You @#$%-@#$%er, you're in a fucking car with air conditioning blasting or heating toasting you, depending on the weather, while I'm out here on foot, braving idiots like you so I can get to fucking work or the store or just out getting some fucking exercise, and you can't wait a fucking ten seconds more to let me cross the street where I HAVE THE FUCKING RIGHT OF WAY you @#$% @#$% er!

AMEN!!

I mean, come ON, do you think that people on foot are just out for a casual little happy stroll? What makes some motorists assume that while THEY, the all importan motorist, is no doubt on an important errand, or on their way to work and such, that somehow those on foot couldn't possibly being doing anything "real".

You, the motorist, as bluesthree said so well above are nice and comfy in your car, not only are you warm or cool enough, but it's going to take you 1/10th the time that it will take US to do our errands and get to work and so on.

Go the extra 15 steps indeed!!!! Scuse me anni.., but we go WAY more than our fair share of steps in a day. And that's totally aside from the issue that YOU and your ilk are required by law to yield to the little white man and the pedestrians using him to cross the street.

Sorry, based on your posts, you've always struck me as being really sweet, but on this one, you need to rethink it.

[Lute Skywatcher]

It can be inferred from the fact that the OP exists at all. It can be inferred fromt the OP that Ana didn't hit the pedestrian. That's the likely result of proceeding without looking, yes? If, before pulling away, she returned her attention to the direction of motion, she wouldn't be so surprised to see the 'obstruction'.One can return their attention to the direction of motion and still be surpised. That driver I crossed in front of was certainly surprised to see me!But you're ducking the point, anyway, when you earlier defended setting a car in motion without looking, purely because you wouldn't expect there to be a pedestrian in the way.Yes, depending on where the car is.

[Harborwolf]

AMEN!!

I mean, come ON, do you think that people on foot are just out for a casual little happy stroll? What makes some motorists assume that while THEY, the all importan motorist, is no doubt on an important errand, or on their way to work and such, that somehow those on foot couldn't possibly being doing anything "real".

You, the motorist, as bluesthree said so well above are nice and comfy in your car, not only are you warm or cool enough, but it's going to take you 1/10th the time that it will take US to do our errands and get to work and so on.

Go the extra 15 steps indeed!!!! Scuse me anni.., but we go WAY more than our fair share of steps in a day. And that's totally aside from the issue that YOU and your ilk are required by law to yield to the little white man and the pedestrians using him to cross the street.

Sorry, based on your posts, you've always struck me as being really sweet, but on this one, you need to rethink it.

This, and Bluesthrees post have to be the dumbest thing I have read on the board in quite some time. You should be more respectful to pedestrians because you are more comfortable and will get to your destination faster?? Honestly, at least the people saying Ana should pay more attention have a point.

If that's the best you can come up with, cram that fart of an argument back up your ass and don't let it back out until it at least has a turd to bring with it.

[Lute Skywatcher]

In defense of my "not expecting pedestrians" argument, I offer this:

I was on my mountain bike, lost, and ended up on the shoulder of a multilane road, against traffic. At one point, I rode in front of this driver who was waiting to make a right turn onto the same multilane road from a side street. I probably wasn't even aware that car was there and had crossed all the way across that street before she even knew I was there! She must have noticed me at some point because I heard her brake hard. Guess I shook her up a bit.

That road has no sidewalk, just a shoulder. No reason to expect anyone to be on the shoulder going against the flow of traffic.

[TVeblen]

Not to derail a promising trainwreck or anything, but trying to apportion blame to pedestrians is a fairly futile exercise. Sure, it'd be swell if people would use basic common sense but many don't, walking or driving. The difference is, nobody needs a license to walk. The higher responsiblity is placed on drivers. Period. Though not beyond reason...

Of course pedestrians sometimes do completely brainless things. I once watched a teenager get hit. She got off a (city) bus, then darted across the front of the stopped bus, directly into the line of traffic. The driver didn't have a prayer of avoiding her. She wasn't badly injured, and the driver of the car wasn't even ticketed. (Yeah, I pulled over to serve as witness.)

But the heaviset burden of responsiblity is on the driver. Pedestrians can be kids, doddery old folks and the just plain clueless. Picking over various scenarios, street markings and such are just variations on the basic theme: drivers carry the brunt of responsiblity because their capacity to do severe damage is much higher. Bicycles are a gray area. Arrogant drivers forget they have a right to share the road. Arrogant cyclists forget they are subject to rules of the road.

I'm not piling on Anaamika because it sounds like she was just venting over a routine driver's frustration. Driving well sometimes feels like you need more eyes on stalks than a bizarrely mutated marine critter. Or possibly insect. Yuck. Anyway, in her specific instance, the pedestrian was in the right.

Veb

[CanvasShoes]

This, and Bluesthrees post have to be the dumbest thing I have read on the board in quite some time. You should be more respectful to pedestrians because you are more comfortable and will get to your destination faster?? Honestly, at least the people saying Ana should pay more attention have a point.

If that's the best you can come up with, cram that fart of an argument back up your ass and don't let it back out until it at least has a turd to bring with it.Yes, ana should pay more attention. However that's not the part of her OP to which I was responding. Way to read the entire post. If you'll notice neither of us addressed the paying attention/not paying attention portion of the argument. We were addressing a different part of her post. Folks CAN do that you know.

At any rate, she suggested, pert near demanded that the pedestrian should simply go around behind her, "it's only a toyota, just go the extra 15 steps".

Um, NO??? We have the right of way. I have never crossed without making 100% sure I have the driver's undivided attention, even if I have the white walk man. If the driver has sunglasses on, I get their attention verbally, making sure they know I see them and vice versa.

I can't speak for bluesthree, but MY irritation was mainly with her arrogant attitude that peds should just "walk the 15 steps" really a smug arrorgant and wrong minded attitude. Other posters ARE allowed to respond to a portion of another poster's post without it meaning they're arguing the whole thing.

And the "you should just walk the 15 steps" part of the post WAS accurately rebutted by both bluesthree's and my post. That of "look, who do you think you are that you are supposedly doing something more important than a pedestrian that THEY can simply take the extra steps, but YOU shouldn't be inconvenienced" etc.

[Harborwolf]

Right Canvasshoes. I got that. I understood your post and Bluesthree.

It's still friggin stupid. It's fifteen friggin steps. How friggin long will that take you. Will you even notice them when you get to your destination?

Sorry I was late. I had to walk around a Honda.

Boy my feet sure are tired. If only I hadn't walked around that Honda.

Yeah, they had to amputate my feet. It was frostbite. They might have been able to save them, but I had to walk around a Honda and it kept me out for just long enough.

It's not an inconvenience. It's fifteen steps.

You know, my truck has a broken window. It's winter here and the bugger never really get's warm. I'd suffer just as much waiting for you to cross in front as you would walking behind. Do I still have to suffer in silence, or can I flip you the bird? :p

[stretch]

Right Canvasshoes. I got that. I understood your post and Bluesthree.

It's still friggin stupid. It's fifteen friggin steps. How friggin long will that take you. Will you even notice them when you get to your destination?

Sorry I was late. I had to walk around a Honda.

Boy my feet sure are tired. If only I hadn't walked around that Honda.

Yeah, they had to amputate my feet. It was frostbite. They might have been able to save them, but I had to walk around a Honda and it kept me out for just long enough.

It's not an inconvenience. It's fifteen steps.

You know, my truck has a broken window. It's winter here and the bugger never really get's warm. I'd suffer just as much waiting for you to cross in front as you would walking behind. Do I still have to suffer in silence, or can I flip you the bird? :p

Dude, it's just plain good manners to allow pedestrians to cross in front of you without expecting them to wait until you feel like letting them. If it's a 110 F in the middle of the parking lot, on the street, etc., and you are sitting in a nice cushy car with AC while I'm crossing the street/in front of you into the store/whatever the fuck, the courteous thing to do is wait patiently for me to cross in front of you. Even more so if if it's snowing, raining or just nose-hair-freezing cold. It's nicer to let the poor slob who is actually out in the weather to go on his/her way without making him/her wait on the person in a climate-controlled box.

It's also about assuming that the driver's time is more valuable than mine as a pedestrian. Maybe I have somewhere to be also, and this is the 200th time I've been expected to walk those 15 extra steps because in reality the asshole driving the deadly weapon trumps my right to walk. It is an inconvenience for the pedestrian, albeit one that you find petty.

Nobody likes the crosswalk rules I guess; here in Washington drivers are supposed to wait until the crosswalk is CLEAR before you make your turn. That means if I'm still in the crosswalk, you can damn well just stay in your lane and wait. I know that drivers think this is impractical, but you never know who's crossing in front of you.

And what if the person is disabled in some way? When the city of Yakima installed the audible walk signals for the blind, the signals were not set consistently resulting in some of the east/west crossings having the north/south sound effect and vice versa. Here's your average blind person, pressing the north/south walk button while someone across the street pushes east/west. East/west makes the north/south sound and blind person starts to cross. The city was luring blind people to their potential deaths!

I both drive and walk. I try to be both a courteous and predictable driver. I try to survive as a pedestrian.

My pedestrian motto: Feet--the original mode of transportation. Those of you on wheels can back the fuck off. My driver motto: Go ahead walker--I have AC, heat, and a rocking stereo; I can wait the 30 seconds for you to cross.

[Alice The Goon]

I've already posted on this, but I just had to come back and say:

Look, part of being a good (non-pedestrian-hitting) driver is looking both ways dilligently before proceeding from a stop. Some people learn this, some don't. I've come VERY close to hitting someone by not looking, and I've learned my lesson. I'm now in full Grandma-mode when I drive, as hitting someone would cause me to lose my frickin' mind, I'd be so upset.

If the OP hasn't learned this important lesson and instead chooses to blame the walkers for her mistakes, she needs to rethink her position. If she somehow doesn't understand this, I feel sorry for any pedestrians anywhere she drives. Some people just cannnot grasp that they are the most important people on the road.

[Alice The Goon]

Well, of course, the last line should read "are NOT the most important people on the road."

[Mr. Miskatonic]

Size, and ability to kill are irrelevant in this case. What about respect for the law on both sides?

If a pedestrian has the go for the walk light, and a driver fails to yield, then yes, the driver should be fined.

If a pedestrian doesn't have the go for the walk light, and takes it upon themselves to walk aimlessly in front of moving traffic, the pedestrian should get the same fine.

What if a pedestrian jaywalks, and a car hits him? If the pedestrian is lucky enough to get away with minimal injury, it still wastes time for everyone involved. Court costs, lawyers fees, ticket fines... It seems a $500 fine for a pedestrian crossing the walk while the walk light is red, seems justifiable.

Respect for the law also inlcudes increasing penalties as the crime's potential harm is taken into factor. This has been an element in law for quite some time.

A car can kill or maim. Hence the large fine.

I am amazed at your line of reasoning. It doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Lute Skywatcher]

GorillaMan: I think I gave you the wrong impression re: proceeding without looking. Depending on the circumstances, proceeding without looking is understandable. That doesn't mean I think it's right.

[Noone Special]

Um, people?

While I agree with the sentiment most of you have been voicing (Pedestrian has Right of Way, Dammit!) I feel sorry for Anaamika, seeing how everyone and their dog seems to be enjoying piling up on her. I read her rant as saying, basicly, "You idiot! You're lucky I was the one behind the wheel there and not some shit-for-brains who could have sent you to kingdom come. Yes, I know you have the right of way -- but you do realize that St. Peter ain't gonna be impressed when you walk up to the gate, dontcha?"

I read it as a rant against pedestrians who take "having right of way" to mean "I can jump into the street at will, because it is the driver's duty to avoid me." Well guess what? You're absolutely right, and you'll still be just as dead when some idiot driver isn't being careful enough!

Here in Israel, an auto insurance company once came out with a half-commercial, half-public-service ad that went "On the road, don't be right; be smart!" This is so true, it has become, within the space of only a few years, a full fledged idiom in the Hebrew language, in all walks of life (minus the "on the road" intro.) Another expression that has entered the language here -- "Right of Way is given, not taken" -- comes to mind as well.

So - drivers: pay attention. Walkers: pay double attention. Look, I know you're right, but it's mostly your ass on the line; don't let some idiot driver shoot it up for you just because you know he ain't supposed to do it.

Or, as Ronald Reagan said, in a completely different context: "Trust, but verify!" MAke eye contact with the driver if possible. Make sure they've seen you. Then cross in front of the car - after you're sure the driver realizes you have the right of way!

Dani

[ParentalAdvisory]

I am amazed at your line of reasoning. It doesn't make a lick of sense.


Sure it does. It would give the pedestrian a better responsibility of their own well being. You've to admit, a lot of pedestrians don't pay attention to traffic all the time. While it's understood that the driver should give way to pedestrians, many drivers don't really pay any attention to the traffic either. Why would it be bad to fine pedestrians for not watching their own ass, and possible getting injured in the process? If I knew that I would get slapped with a $500 fine for jaywalking, I'd be sure not to do it again!

I don't understand all the sympathy for the pedestrian ALL the time, when they can be just as clueless as the driver.

[Harborwolf]

My pedestrian motto: Feet--the original mode of transportation. Those of you on wheels can back the fuck off. My driver motto: Go ahead walker--I have AC, heat, and a rocking stereo; I can wait the 30 seconds for you to cross.

I've got the same motto as a driver.

As a pedestrian I stick to "You outweigh me by more than a ton. After you." :D

[blowero]

Um, people?

While I agree with the sentiment most of you have been voicing (Pedestrian has Right of Way, Dammit!) I feel sorry for Anaamika, seeing how everyone and their dog seems to be enjoying piling up on her. I read her rant as saying, basicly, "You idiot! You're lucky I was the one behind the wheel there and not some shit-for-brains who could have sent you to kingdom come. Yes, I know you have the right of way -- but you do realize that St. Peter ain't gonna be impressed when you walk up to the gate, dontcha?"

I read it as a rant against pedestrians who take "having right of way" to mean "I can jump into the street at will, because it is the driver's duty to avoid me." Well guess what? You're absolutely right, and you'll still be just as dead when some idiot driver isn't being careful enough!

Look, this is getting downright annoying now. Several of you have said this, but I don't see it AT ALL from the OP. This is what's in the OP:

You know, when I'm trying to turn right onto a busy road? And I'm studiously looking left, to see if the way has cleared, and I'm glancing right but predominantly I'm looking left?

Well, it's really stupid to walk in front of my car at this point.

Please read that again - very, very carefully. She is saying, plain as day, that it's STUPID to walk in front of a car that's "trying to turn right", because she's "glancing right but predominantly looking left".

WHERE DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT JUMPING INTO THE STREET AT WILL? WHERE DOES IT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE PEDESTRIAN INSISTING ON THE RIGHT OF WAY?

It doesn't. It says the pedestrian was "stupid" to walk in front of her car. That's wrong. What's stupid is to make a right turn without looking in the direction your car is going. Hence the "pile-on", as so many of you seem fond of calling it.

Here in Israel, an auto insurance company once came out with a half-commercial, half-public-service ad that went "On the road, don't be right; be smart!" This is so true, it has become, within the space of only a few years, a full fledged idiom in the Hebrew language, in all walks of life (minus the "on the road" intro.) Another expression that has entered the language here -- "Right of Way is given, not taken" -- comes to mind as well.

So - drivers: pay attention. Walkers: pay double attention. Look, I know you're right, but it's mostly your ass on the line; don't let some idiot driver shoot it up for you just because you know he ain't supposed to do it.

Let me explain something again here. It is possible to agree with the above, yet disagree with the OP.

If you want to start a discussion about obnoxious pedestrians, lets start one - I've got a few stories about that. But don't pretend that's what the OP was talking about. It is NOT overly-aggressive to walk across the street in front of a car that is stopped at the intersection. No, we should NOT be required to slink around behind the car, and NO, it is not arrogant to think so.

[Harborwolf]

Blowero, if the pedestrian was looking he would've noticed Ana not looking at him. Either he wasn't looking or he thought he could make it before she turned.

In either case, the pedestrian made a really stupid decision.

[blowero]

Blowero, if the pedestrian was looking he would've noticed Ana not looking at him. Either he wasn't looking or he thought he could make it before she turned.

In either case, the pedestrian made a really stupid decision.
How does this relate at all to the point I just made?

[Lute Skywatcher]

It says the pedestrian was "stupid" to walk in front of her car. That's wrong. What's stupid is to make a right turn without looking in the direction your car is going. Hence the "pile-on", as so many of you seem fond of calling it.Problem is, none of us really know what happened; all we have is a bunch of electrons.

[blowero]

Problem is, none of us really know what happened; all we have is a bunch of electrons.
Can I ask how old you are, Lute? I just want to know how to react to your non-sensical posts. Maybe I shouldn't be assuming you're an adult.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Can I ask how old you are, Lute? I just want to know how to react to your non-sensical posts. Maybe I shouldn't be assuming you're an adult.This from the man who raised selective reading to an art from.

[blowero]

So should I assume that you're a kid, since you didn't answer my question?

[Lute Skywatcher]

So should I assume that you're a kid, since you didn't answer my question?I'm not about to answer anything until you prove that you are capable of rational thought.

[Noone Special]

blowero -- I went back and re-read the OP. Keeping in mind Anaamika's general style in other places, I still think she has been misunderstood. Plus I just tend to give people the benefit of doubt. I'm a sucker that way. You disagree with me as to what she meant. Fine, we can agree to disagree there. And you may be right -- she may have behaved poorly and may not be in a position to rant about it. But I see this as the minor point in the larger discussion that has developed.

I think we both agree on this wider issue -- namely, that while as a pedestrian you always have Right of Way at crosswalks, the fact that you are far more vulnerable than the driver suggests that it may be smarter to wait a few more seconds if you aren't certain the driver is actually giving you the RoW that you are entitled to. Being right has nothing to do with this advice. Staying alive does. Because the world is full of idiots, and most of them own cars.

Dani

[blowero]

blowero -- I went back and re-read the OP. Keeping in mind Anaamika's general style in other places, I still think she has been misunderstood.

I don't think so. If you still think the "pile-one" was unjust, how about just looking at the thread title. It says, "It's not wise to walk in front of a turning car." It DOESN'T say, "You should look both ways before crossing the street", nor does it say, "You shouldn't insist on the right-of-way", nor does it say, "Don't jump out into traffic without looking." No, the clear implication is that, merely by virtue of the fact that she intends to turn right, that she believes she ought to be afforded some sort of special dispensation by pedestrians, and even goes so far as to suggest that they ought to have to walk behind her car.

Plus I just tend to give people the benefit of doubt. I'm a sucker that way. You disagree with me as to what she meant. Fine, we can agree to disagree there. And you may be right -- she may have behaved poorly and may not be in a position to rant about it. But I see this as the minor point in the larger discussion that has developed.

Fair enough. Have a larger discussion if you want; just quit saying that I misunderstood the OP, because I didn't. Have your larger discussion, but leave me out of it.

I think we both agree on this wider issue -- namely, that while as a pedestrian you always have Right of Way at crosswalks, the fact that you are far more vulnerable than the driver suggests that it may be smarter to wait a few more seconds if you aren't certain the driver is actually giving you the RoW that you are entitled to. Being right has nothing to do with this advice. Staying alive does. Because the world is full of idiots, and most of them own cars.

I just think you're arguing against a strawman. Did anyone advocate foolhardiness?

[Lute Skywatcher]

blowero -- I went back and re-read the OP. Keeping in mind Anaamika's general style in other places, I still think she has been misunderstood. Plus I just tend to give people the benefit of doubt. I'm a sucker that way. You disagree with me as to what she meant. Fine, we can agree to disagree there. And you may be right -- she may have behaved poorly and may not be in a position to rant about it. But I see this as the minor point in the larger discussion that has developed.I'm with you (as if it wasn't obvious :)).I think we both agree on this wider issue -- namely, that while as a pedestrian you always have Right of Way at crosswalks, the fact that you are far more vulnerable than the driver suggests that it may be smarter to wait a few more seconds if you aren't certain the driver is actually giving you the RoW that you are entitled to. Being [i]right has nothing to do with this advice. Staying alive does. Because the world is full of idiots, and most of them own cars.I'm with you here too, with one caveat. The pedestrian has to be in the crosswalk, with the signal, to have the right-of-way. Otherwise, I'm with the Government of the District of Columbia: the driver and the pedestrian share responsibility if said pedestrian is struck.

[blowero]

Great, we'll all consider that strawman knocked down, then.

[Frank]

Great, we'll all consider that strawman knocked down, then.
Well, he shouldn't have walked in front of me.

d&r

[picunurse]

<insert hugely insulting comment about the OP because I may be a pedestrian in front of her car some day>

I was hit in a crosswalk by someone turning right, and I was RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM. I always make eye contact with the driver, and I really thought I did with him. He was wearing sunglasses, and apparently the eye-contact thing didn't work out for me. Was I still in the wrong, then?

You're the :wally
Sorry, but at least in this state, if there is a pedestrian anywhere in the crosswalk, you'll be ticketed if you enter it in your car. even if you have the light! feet have the right of way all the time. Stop trying to turn, while there are people trying to walk.
Go to Colombia, where BIG has the right of way.

[picunurse]

Sorry, trublmakr. I didn't mean to quote you as though you were running over me. I just hit the wrong button, and didn't notice. Time for bed. :smack: