I’ve never seen that either - and where I live, the driver’s manual contains this
You are stopped at a red light. A pedestrian steps into the crosswalk, and then the light turns green. You must wait for the pedestrian to go across. You must also yield to pedestrians in crosswalks on your left or right before you turn.
So cars must always yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk , even if you have the green light at the same time the pedestrians on the street you are turning onto have the walk sign - but that would only happen at an intersection with no green left turn arrow , just a green light for all traffic.
I’m quite certain. The intersection in question is fully signaled and has left turn arrows on all four approaches. The left turn light from the north approach turning east turns green at the same time as the walk sign for that same area which I am crossing from south to north on the east side of the intersection. I can provide video proof of this if necessary.
I am in the state of WA, for the record.
Yes, that’s what should happen. Instead, drivers take the existence of the green arrow as free license to go right ahead and disregard the person in the crosswalk. This intersection seems to have a major collision at least once a month or so caused by left-turn drivers not paying attention to what’s in the crossing.
Following distance/tailgating laws. I drive curvy two lane mountain highways all, the, time. Lots of critters can pop out at any time. Deer and moose mostly.
I drive the speed limits because they are reasonable.
But some people just set their car to follow me at the speed limit 30 feet behind me. Pass me if you can do it safely, or back off jack. I pull over for these assholes when it’s safe. I do NOT like being tailgated.
That “freedom to roam” thing reminds me of old Frankland, the litigious character in The Hound of the Baskervilles, who establishes a right of way across his neighbor’s estate, and is always being threatened with lynching or celebrated by the citizens of Fernworthy, depending on whether his lawsuits close off land they used for picnicking or established their rights elsewhere.
Yeah I’ve never quite got why footpath rights of way are not a thing generally in the US (there is the odd long-distance trail but if you roll up to a random bit of nice countryside that is not a park, the chances of having a walking trail through it is vanishingly small). I get its to do with the dominance of the car in US, but rights of way go back far longer than that, and US law is based on English common law.
I really don’t think it has to do with the dominance of cars at all - I’m pretty sure that it has a more to do with the concept of private property. There are places/situations in the US that give the public certain rights on private land - and while I don’t have any problem with the idea that I must allow the public to walk across my land to get to the beach that I don’t own , I find it a little bizarre that in some states anyone can hunt on my land unless I have specifically posted signs forbidding hunting and/or trespassing.
Let’s not forget the fact that, while it takes 2 - 3 months to walk from Land’s End to John O’Groats, you can walk the same distance in the US and still be in Texas!*
Well, that’s bonkers. As both a driver and pedestrian I would complain to local government to get that change. The whole point of a green turn arrow is you have a right of way. It would be like giving a green light on one street and having a walk sign on the perpendicular street.
(b) Vehicle operators facing a green arrow signal, shown alone or in combination with another indication, may enter the intersection control area only to make the movement indicated by such arrow, or such other movement as is permitted by other indications shown at the same time. Vehicle operators shall stop to allow other vehicles lawfully within the intersection control area to complete their movements. Vehicle operators shall also stop for pedestrians who or personal delivery devices that are lawfully within the intersection control area as required by RCW 46.61.235(1).
Some friends of ours own a large house in the countryside, It used to be a watermill and has a private lake where they look after injured swans.
They also have a public footpath right up their front drive, round the lake, past the house and over a wooden bridge over the stream. They don’t have a lot of traffic but they are quite happy to welcome walkers, even those with dogs so long as they are on a lead. They have been known to offer people tea and cakes under a gazebo on the lawn.
That’s a pretty common situation, in my experience. Err, a green light to make a right turn across the path of the pedestrians walking when the light says “walk”. Happens all the time.
Perpendicular, not parallel. I’m saying the situation that Smapti experiences is the equivalent to get a green light to drive straight forward at the same time a pedestrian gets the green light to walk across in front of me.
Well, that’s just a bad design, then. Around here, any time there’s an “arrow”, left or right turn, that means the pedestrian crossing signal is showing a “Do Not Cross” symbol. I’d be shocked to see both a turn arrow and a safe to cross symbol at the same time.
A green light, sure, that’s all over the place, but he’s talking about a green arrow. The arrow adds more information, and around here, it always means “You’re the only one who should be moving through this space at this moment”. I can’t think of a single example where I have seen a turning arrow for the cars, in which other types of traffic, cars, bike or pedestrians, also have the right to be moving through that space. That’s the whole point of the arrow.
Where is that? That sounds like a British footpath to me. I’ve never seen anything like that in the US (most of my experience is in California and Maryland, but other places too). On the rare occasion there is a long distance trail through the countryside, that is not part of a state/national/regional park, it is either way out in the boonies far away from homes(e.g. pacific crest trail) or, with a very obvious high fence between the trail and any home or garden it goes near.
That is different. I get how when they have a special position for one plate it is easy to do it the old way.
But here in Colorado, month is lower left and year is lower right on every single plate. What is it about the 1% that can’t figure it out when the diagram is right on the bag that holds your new tag?
We do have the Newport Cliff Walk which is a public path across private property, but that’s a special case.
My wife and I did encounter a walking trail a few years ago that turned out to be on private property. The property had recently been sold, and the new owner was attempting to revoke public access to his land. We did not understand his sign and thought it was for the land adjoining the trail. We ran into him, and he was like, “didn’t you see the sign?” Well, yes, but there was also a very clearly marked open trail and the sign was off to the side.
My weirdest public footpath experience was in hiking the Cotswold Way, wherein, at least at the time, the footpath led directly through someone’s barnyard - not their field, but rather a small fenced-in space that was adjacent to an open-sided building that held farm equipment. Thankfully no animals inside the barnyard, which was probably the point of the fences. Still felt weird opening their custom-made gate and walking through to the other side. I doubled back a few times to make sure I didn’t miss a turn, and only finally went through the barnyard once I saw a Cotswold Way marker right beyond the yard (there were none on the private fences to reassure me!)
Where I grew up in Massachusetts, there was a public right-of-way through two neighbor’s yards. It wasn’t a walking trail that would have been of interest to a hiker, it was a foot-path right-of-way from one road to a larger road that kids used to walk to school.
It’s also fairly common for a property behind another property to have a right-of-way across the front property on which they have a driveway.
But as for general “right to roam” access, rather than specific rights-of-way, I suspect the difference is that a lot of land in England was vast tracts of lands owned by the lord, that was mostly used for hunting and lumber. So it made sense for the peasants who actually lived there to be able to walk through the land, and perhaps even collect windfall firewood and mushrooms. Whereas in the US, most of the privately owned land (when the US common law was being formed) was owned by farmers, who didn’t really want strangers cutting across their fields. At least, that’s my guess.
There was a traffic fatality in my city where a bicyclist was struck and killed by a left turning car on a left arrow while there was also a valid walk sign. The city said “Oops!” and quickly changed it, but not before there was talk of legal action.
My stepfather moved across statelines at the age of 92 and had to take a written driver’s test (he was actually fine driving). The only question he got wrong was “When do you need to stop for a pedestrian?” He answered “When they’re in a crosswalk” but the real answer was “Always!”