# Entitlement mentality: Pedestrian right of way. **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [November 29, 2017, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002 "2017-11-29T02:42:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/41 "2017-11-29T15:23:27Z")
> [@jjakucyk](#): > > There’s another component to this that pits people against groups they perceive as “the other.” **When a motorist is cut off by another motorist on the highway or at a stop light or whatever, it’s “that person is a jerk.”** But if a cyclist or pedestrian does something similar, it’s “all cyclists are jerks” or “all pedestrians are jerks.” The same happens in reverse of course. If a cyclist is buzzed by a motorist then it’s “all motorists are jerks.” That’s something we need to try to be better than, partly by recognizing it. Spewing anecdotes about how some pedestrian “darted out” between parked cars or some cyclist blew through a stop sign or some car driver ran a red light while speeding doesn’t accomplish anything meaningful. Except for all the assholes who drive BMW/Mercedes/Porche etc. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/42 "2017-11-29T16:24:46Z")
> [@running\_coach](#): > > Except for all the assholes who drive BMW/Mercedes/Porche etc. > 😉 Deutschbags… ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/43 "2017-11-29T16:29:18Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Deutschbags… That was too good to even threaten punishment. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/44 "2017-11-29T17:33:09Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Cite for both statements? If that ever was the case, it’s not now. One is not “automatically” at fault in either scenario. Fine. There is \*usually \*a presumption and assignment of fault unless certain mitigating circumstances occur. If you want to nitpick, why not nitpick jjakucyk’s assertion that “the term jaywalking was coined by automobile industry associations and lobbyists.” They played a part, true, but they didn’t coin the term and weren’t the first to [campaign against jaywalking](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0ahUKEwil9tnSpuTXAhUHw7wKHUUhAaQQFghUMAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.salon.com%2F2015%2F08%2F20%2Fthe_secret_history_of_jaywalking_the_disturbing_reason_it_was_outlawed_and_why_we_should_lift_the_ban%2F&usg=AOvVaw3kvNjMDEq7tSUvUPK5CbTE). That article will also go a long way toward answering the OP’s question. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/45 "2017-11-29T18:47:56Z")
I can’t speak to the actual factual history even a smidgen. But I can suggest a rationale for the apparent contradiction set out in the OP’s mini-rant. In any interaction it’s good for there to be a balance of rights and responsibilities. If Party A has all the rights and Party B has all the responsibilities the end result tends to be abject abuse of Party B. As a society we think that’s bad. Physics says the car wins in a collision with a pedestrian (“ped”). The driver has the “right” of survival over the ped. And we’re not going to alter that with a piece of paper. The laws of physics come from a higher authority. So for the interaction between driver & ped to work well over the millions of encounters every day, there needs to be some countervailing right going the other way. Absent that, there’d just be abject abuse of peds. Some fatal, but the vast majority of it simply making it impossible for them to ever cross a street except in the traffic-free wee hours. Over time and through practice, the idea has emerged that the ped has the legal right of way. States differ on how that works on a divided roadway, but substantially all 50 say drivers need to yield to peds intersecting their path if possible. Meanwhile, physics says peds (if they know what’s good for them) won’t press the issue too hard. The end result is a rough and ready balance of rights and responsibilities. What looks like contradiction is simply balance by another name. You’ll find this general pattern throughout the common law and most well-considered statute law. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/46 "2017-11-29T19:09:46Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Fine. There is \*usually \*a presumption and assignment of fault unless certain mitigating circumstances occur. You said: _So a legal structure was created to assign guilt, making a driver hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk automatically at fault_ Asking for a cite that the U.S. created a legal structure that assigns guilt, making one automatically at fault, is not nit-picking. > [@](#): > > If you want to nitpick, why not nitpick jjakucyk’s assertion… That sure would be nit-picking, something apparently you’re above. Oh, wait… ---
**Author:** ![jjakucyk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3d9bf3/32.png) [@jjakucyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjakucyk)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/47 "2017-11-29T19:33:00Z")
> [@](#): > > If you want to nitpick, why not nitpick jjakucyk’s assertion… Ok, they popularized and significantly expanded the usage of a term that had only recently been invented by motorists to pejoratively refer to pedestrians, and they succeeded in criminalizing something that didn’t even exist until just after 1900. ---
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/48 "2017-11-29T19:48:30Z")
> [@ZurBob](#): > > I don’t care to engage in a pissing match with you. > Any explanation as to how we got to where we are now? (As per the OP #1 question) I’m guessing it’s the result of deaths, lawsuits, traffic studies, and a blizzard of letters over 50 to 75 years. Just in our city, there are dozens of requests for crosswalks every year. The policy is not to install crosswalks at an unregulated (no stop sign or signal) intersection. Replies saying that the crosswalks won’t be installed usually include mention of the California vehicle code stating that “a crosswalk exists at all pubic intersections, marked or unmarked unless the pedestrian crossing is prohibited by signs. . . the driver shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection . . . shall not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety . . . the driver shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian. [CVC §21950 (a) (b) (c) (d)].” and/or reference to studies that show “higher pedestrian accidents due to the false sense of security at marked crosswalks than at unmarked crosswalks. Pedestrians tend to watch for oncoming traffic before crossing at unmarked crosswalks.” So, you have a right to cross there already, but there’s nothing else there to make a car stop so you need to be wary. Also, painting two stripes in the street isn’t likely to help. Also, we have areas where jaywalkers deliberately look the other way and step out into traffic, forcing cars to stop. This does not mean that they believe they have the legal right of way, it just means that they’re jerks. When you talk about pedestrian entitlement, you’re really talking about a blend of legality and jerkiness. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/49 "2017-11-29T20:11:30Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Something similar applies when “power must yield to sail.” I once watched an amateur regatta of little sailboats hold up a big Italian cargo container ship. The ship’s officers were mad, blowing their horn in bursts of five blasts. (“Emergency.”) But the guys in their sailboats ignored it cheerily. They knew they were perfectly safe! The ships officers were right to be mad, and the sailors did _not_ have right-of-way in this situation. “Power yields to sail” is a simplification of the right of way rules, but it’s incorrect in this case. Shipping tankers have right of way over everything but emergency craft and a boat being tugged. There’s a chart [midway down this page](https://www.boatsmartexam.com/knowledge-base/article/right-of-way-rules-boating/) A better rule of thumb is “the least maneuverable craft has the right of way”. Container ships are extremely not maneuverable. As far as the question about pedestrians: If you don’t give pedestrians right of way at corners, how is one ever supposed to cross a busy street? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/50 "2017-11-29T20:16:20Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Are you under the impression that if they don’t have the right of way, it’s okay to hit them? Based on way too many news stories on this subject, drivers hitting people without the right of way (for instance stepping out into the middle of a street) do not get cited. (Assuming they stop and render assistance.) I don’t know if this makes it right, but it is not legally wrong. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/51 "2017-11-29T20:20:31Z")
I think there’s more than a modicum of condescension towards pedestrians. Another place where I see that is when I approach an intersection or stand near the shoulder waiting for a suitable opportunity to cross a highway. Well-intentioned motorists will stop and wave me on. Usually the’ve paid zero attention to what all the _other_ vehicles might be doing, whereas I’ve calibrated my motion to put myself where I need to be in relationship to _all_ of the traffic, and clueless idiot who just slowed down and stopped and is now waving me on just messed that up for me. (Usually I was going to go directly behind Idiot’s car just after it passed; by slowing down they’ve caused the other cars to get closer and now I can’t go safely, no, I’m not going in front of you, thanks anyway, no, YOU first) What they convey is the impression that pedestrians are stupid and don’t understand cars and might walk directly in front of them and get squished if you don’t stop and wave them through, or else that pedestrians are stupid and can’t time their movement to coincide with a gap in traffic. Admittedly, I’ve seen plenty of pedestrians behaving in a way that completely ratifies that impression, myself. But I’ve often felt that I’d be safer as a pedestrian if I could be invisible to drivers when I’m trying to cross the damn road. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/52 "2017-11-29T20:20:39Z")
> [@TSBG](#): > > Our British posters can weigh in, but I believe that automobiles have the right of way in Blighty. > > Regarding right of way in the US–yes, these laws vary by state, to the perpetual confusion of foreigners as well as Americans. I lived in Manhattan for a long time, where whatever the law pedestrians crowd as far as they can into the road to dash across during the briefest of intervals. I loved it. > > I now live in SoCal, were the LA cops will sometimes ticket you for setting foot in a crosswalk the moment the white “walk” signal turns to orange. I’ve had it happen. In fact, pedestrians are not supposed to enter crosswalks with countdown timers in California when they are counting down. Never saw anyone get ticketed for this. Having walked extensively in both New York and San Francisco, New York pedestrians are a lot more daring. San Franciscans will cross against a light, but they look first. In New York we believe in safety in numbers. Best illustration is Midnight Cowboy, when Dustin Hoffman as Ratso Rizzo pounds on the hood of a car and says “I’m walkin’ here.” I understand that this was an ad lib, though I could be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/53 "2017-11-29T20:38:17Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > The ships officers were right to be mad, and the sailors did _not_ have right-of-way in this situation. > > “Power yields to sail” is a simplification of the right of way rules, but it’s incorrect in this case. Shipping tankers have right of way over everything but emergency craft and a boat being tugged. . . . I didn’t know that…and I wonder how many in the regatta knew that? (At least one of the sailors has a USCG Captain’s certificate…) ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/54 "2017-11-29T20:50:52Z")
I think \*\*Trinopus \*\*and \*\*LSLGuy \*\*put it best: The OP is confused about the legal right to do something, vs. the actual practical wisdom of doing that thing. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/55 "2017-11-29T20:55:25Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > … > But I’ve often felt that I’d be safer as a pedestrian if I could be invisible to drivers when I’m trying to cross the damn road. As a frequent pedestrian in cities all across the land I heartily endorse this message. I’m the guy doing the death-defying act here. Y’all drivers jes keep doin’ what you’re doin’ and I’ll work around you. Honest, it’s safer that way. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/56 "2017-11-29T21:37:33Z")
As a vehicle operator, you first, paramount, responsibility is to not hit things. If someone turns left across your path, you are not entitled to run into them, even if you have the right-of-way. If you have the ability to avoid a collision, you are expected to do so. If there is a pedestrian in the street half a block away and you can slow down a little to avoid an impact, not doing so can place you in a bad position. Hitting a pedestrian that you could have avoided can cost you a great deal more time than slowing/stopping to let them go by (unless there will be no witnesses or cameras to the incident). ---
**Author:** ![Flyer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/flyer/32/7298_2.png) [@Flyer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flyer)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/57 "2017-11-29T22:51:14Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > You did not produce cites that pedestrians always have the right of way. Actually, your cites prove the opposite: > > _When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way_ > > Since a particular scenario is mentioned, this means that the driver does not always have to yield the right of way. > > \*Nineteen states require a motorist to yield when a pedestrian is upon any portion of the roadway. \* > Which means it’s not the case in 31 states. Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. Is it really that hard to understand from my cites that **YES** , THE LEGAL SYSTEM **DOES** ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO ASSUME THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY??? I guess your username is appropriate: you cannot perceive the blindingly obvious, because you see right through it as if it weren’t even there. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/58 "2017-11-29T23:05:38Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable. > > Is it really that hard to understand from my cites that **YES** , THE LEGAL SYSTEM **DOES** ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO ASSUME THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY??? > > I guess your username is appropriate: you cannot perceive the blindingly obvious, because you see right through it as if it weren’t even there. Your cites do what I said, they prove that pedestrians don’t always have the right of way. Now you are making a different claim. Your cites also do not encourage people to believe that they always have the right of way. I don’t see how posting a cite regarding 19 states counts as evidence. Or cites about _specific_ situations. From your first link: \*(b) “Don’t Walk” (steady): While the “Don’t Walk” indication is steadily illuminated, no pedestrian shall enter the roadway in the direction of the signal indication. (c) “Don’t Walk” (flashing): Whenever the “Don’t Walk” indication is flashing, no pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of such signal indication, but any pedestrian who has partly completed crossing during the “Walk” indication shall proceed to a sidewalk or to a safety island, and all drivers of vehicles shall yield to any such pedestrian.\* That sounds like they are encouraging people to understand that they DON’T always have the right of way. What’s with all of the anger? ---
**Author:** ![excavating\_for\_a\_mind](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e8c25b/32.png) [@excavating\_for\_a\_mind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/excavating_for_a_mind)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2017, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/59 "2017-11-29T23:32:41Z")
As this board has international readership, I do think that it needs to be kept in mind that different locals have different pedestrian laws. In France, for example, at an unmarked intersection, a pedestrian has the ROW (and will stop traffic) simply by approaching an intersection. If, as a pedestrian, you aren’t sure if you need to go straight, turn left, or turn right when approaching an intersection, it is wise to stop and figure that out before you reach the intersection. The cars will stop. I never had French drivers become irate at me for being a pedestrian, but I wouldn’t be surprised in some did. Also, in the US, in just about every college campus I’ve ever been on, the students have the ROW whether they are in a crosswalk or not. Intersections with lights and Walk/Don’t Walk signs are an exception, but even if there is a signal, the driver is supposed to yield to the [del]child[/del] student. Funny, we teach kids from the time the learn to walk to be sure and look both ways when crossing a street, then send them to college and make it so they can go from one end of campus to the other without taking their eyes off their phone. The reason for this, however, is obvious, to me at least. The car is (nearly) always going to win in a physical encounter. As driving a car on the road is a privilege, it is up to the driver to operate the vehicle in a manner as to not run down pedestrians. If you don’t like it, don’t exercise your privilege. Of course, there are roadways where pedestrians are prohibited (Interstate Highways, for example), so perhaps you could just confine your driving to Interstate Highways. Even in those cases, however, it is considered in bad form for a driver to run over a pedestrian. To be honest, having lived in college towns for a large portion of my life, I have become perturbed at the “entitled attitude” some pedestrians have, but I’ve gotten over it. Very little of my driving is done is places that are congested with pedestrians and when I do encounter them, I just slow and be careful. It doesn’t take long for me to get through the congested area and I can get on with my life. ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2017, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002/60 "2017-11-30T04:39:29Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > In fact, pedestrians are not supposed to enter crosswalks with countdown timers in California when they are counting down. Never saw anyone get ticketed for this. I know it’s the law, and I imagine there’s a similar law in NYC too. The difference is is in ticky-tack enforcement. I have personally been ticketed for it and know others who have been too. LA cops hang out at downtown intersections during Christmas shopping season and generate revenue this way. I can’t imagine a NY cop wasting his time on bullshit like this. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/entitlement-mentality-pedestrian-right-of-way/803002.md?page=4)