Also: There are frequently intersections in SoCal residential neighborhoods not regulated by traffic signal or sign AT ALL. At the same time, California law says drivers are supposed to understand there is an “implied crosswalk,” that is to say a legal pedestrian right of way, at any two connecting non-diagonal corners. So the cars don’t have to stop, but pedestrians have the right of way.
Here is how I think the law is meant to work:
A pedestrian on the sidewalk or otherwise not already in the street does not have the right of way to step into the street at any time even in front of an on-coming car. I think he could get a ticket for doing that.
On the other hand, once a pedestrian is in the street, legally or otherwise, any on-coming vehicle must yield right-of-way to that pedestrian. This just makes sense: When a pedestrian is in the street, legally or not, don’t run him down. I believe this law and logic applies anywhere: Whether the pedestrian is jaywalking, or crossing in a crosswalk, or at a corner against a “Don’t Walk” sign or red light.
Note the implication, in a case like that, that pedestrian and driver could both be ticketed.
As it happens, I got into a discussion just a week ago with some friends about this, and they claimed that vehicles must stop for pedestrians who aren’t even in the street yet. It suffices if they are standing on the curb, looking like they are about to step into the street. Now, this makes no sense to me at all, and I don’t believe it.
Beyond what you may assume, I never implied that a pedestrian ALLWAYS has the right of way. As far as answering your question to my post #11, I have no idea what more you require beyond what has already been provided, your assumptions aside.
Sure, but you can replace pedestrian with “another driver” and the same is also true:
If a car goes through a red light, you can’t purposely go through your green and t-bone him…but you have the right of way. If you couldn’t stop in time and you don’t hit him on purpose, it may be found that you had no fault- same when hitting a pedestrian when he is supposed to yield to you or jumps in the road too quickly for you to react.
That is true in some states and not in others.
You have no idea?
You: As for your “second part”… The legal system encourages people to step in front of moving vehicles.
Me: How so?
I’m asking a simple question. In what way does the legal system encourage people to step in front of moving vehicles?
Change that to: it may not be found that you are at fault
Let’s not wander too far away from the premise of the initial OP question, OK?
Why does the pedestrian have the legal/historical right of way?
Sorry for my subsequent distracting rant.
You’re not making it easy to help to answer you.
You seem to have acknowledged that pedestrians don’t always have the right of way. So, are you asking why they do some of the time? How exactly do you think it should be? That they never do? Are you under the impression that if they don’t have the right of way, it’s okay to hit them? I’m not being a wise-ass. That’s what it seems like you’re asking from here. I don’t see how that’s not the case based on questions that you’ve asked and you’re refusing to answer a simple question to help me understand you.
In answer to that simple question : Because I (they, we,) can… I am entitled, because of legal protection.
What legal protection? Can you cite a state law as an example?
How exactly do you think it should be? That pedestrians never have the right of way? If something else, what?
Examples of two states differing:
Illinois:
Connecticut:
Pedestrians have right-of-way for the same reason sailboats do over motorboats, I think: squishier and slower overall. Of course, pedestrians are more manouverable compared to cars vs sailing boats compared to motorboats, so it’s not a perfect analogy, but I think it stands.
To answer your question concerning State law, it’s safe to say (I cede with no cites) that all have similar laws concerning pedestrian influence.
Yes, to answer your question, I feel it is incorrect to give pedestrian right of way as we generally know it now. OMG:eek:
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)
In the UK, cars have right of way over pedestrians on roads, except on lit crossings and zebra crossings.
Same with planes and hot air balloons - it’s not so much a matter of who has ‘rights’ as it is about who has the greatest capacity to avoid an incident.
‘Pedestrian right of way’ is shorthand for “It’s not OK to just drive through people, even if they aren’t where they are supposed to be”. “Well, he shouldn’t have been there, so I just kept going” is not an excuse.
What are you talking about? The post you quoted was for another poster regarding something he said.
No. I’m done trying to help you. Answering my questions in a vague manner is making my helping you too difficult to engage with you further. Maybe someone else will give it a try, but I suspect you already have all of the answers you need in this thread.
Moderating
Although there are factual questions in the OP, rants and opinions don’t belong in GQ. Moving to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
It’s not quite that clear cut- in general, the main responsibility is on the car driver to not hit pedestrians, and there is no offence of jaywalking in the UK. Pedestrians that are already crossing the road have priority, regardless of whether they are on a crossing or not.
I do find the overall assertion that pedestrians are the ones who are entitled here to be rather absurd and disturbing. As if pedestrians haven’t been shunted to the edges of the right-of-way, if not ignored completely or outright banned in favor of motor vehicles that take up an order of magnitude more space (not only while driving but also while parked). I noted last night that the term jaywalking was coined by automobile industry associations and lobbyists. They also began distributing boilerplate incident reports to police departments to use for motor vehicle reports around the same time. That’s where language like “car accident” came into use, which is a passive term that suggests nobody (especially the vehicle operator) was at fault. Prior to then, the terms used were “motor killings” along with “slaughter” “mangling” among others. The burden of safety was shifted away from those literally operating heavy machinery to those who just happened to be going about their business in public as humans had been doing for thousands of years.
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.