I pit drivers who stop at pedestrian crossings. (Mild)

[Contrapuntal]

@Ravenman

Well, I think this has pretty much run its course. Were I to ever see you poised on the sidewalk waiting to cross a busy street, I’d stop for you, L.E., and laugh as traffic piled up behind me.

The smiley is noted, but in my book this makes you an arrogant jerk. It is not up to you to decide, capriciously, when and why traffic must stop. Inviting someone to cross, when you have no power to stop traffic in both directions, is dangerous, foolish, and quite possibly actionable, if an accident should occur. And laughing as traffic stacks up behind you? You are the kind of asshole who should be denied a license to drive. The rules of the road were written for everyone, even those who fancy themselves among the elite.

[Mister_Rik]

@Raygun99

You’re faster, just go through!

Yes! My natural desire for efficiency in all things tells me that I’m going to hold up traffic by crossing in front of this vehicle much longer than the traffic is going to hold me up by proceeding at the expected pace. I’m usually not in such a hurry when I’m walking or biking that I can’t wait few extra seconds for a break in traffic.

@Ravenman

Cars and pedestrians are NOT equal. When it comes to a crosswalk, the law says that pedestrians (who are not being reckless, of course) have right of way. Cars do NOT have right of way.

Depending on how you want to read it, that means that pedestrians are MORE important than cars. Pedestrians are entitled to make cars stop for them at crosswalks so long as they are not being reckless. That’s quite simply all there is to it.

I don’t know why this is so complicated. It seems very simple to me: If a pedestrian is already in the crosswalk when you approach, you stop. If they are merely standing on the corner and you have no stop sign or red light, you keep going.

[Czarcasm]

@Contrapuntal

The pedestrian is forbidden to cross until is is safe to do so. There is no Catch-22.

There are many roads in my city where traffic can legally drive 45 mph. in four lanes, two in each direction. They are major arteries for moving large volumes of traffic. Are they to come to a screeching halt every time someone using a walker decides he wants to cross the road?

So you feel it is right that a person wait until traffic is clear in all four lanes before she/he tries to cross the street, not matter how long it takes, but you’ll scream bloody murder if you are inconvenienced for 1 minute by pedestrian traffic? Did it ever occur to you that “someone using a walker” might have someplace specific to get to, and isn’t doing it just to spite you?

[Czarcasm]

@Phase42

I don’t know why this is so complicated. It seems very simple to me: If a pedestrian is already in the crosswalk when you approach, you stop. If they are merely standing on the corner and you have no stop sign or red light, you keep going.

I don’t know why this is so complicated. It seems very simple to me: I’m not going to step out into moving traffic hoping that every damn driver out there is fully attentive, alert, aware of what the traffic rules are and follows those rules 100% of the time. Y’see, if the driver guesses wrong, she/he stopped for nothing, maybe pisses of the person behind and is at most a minute behind schedule. On the other hand, if I(the pedestrian) guess wrong, it hurts. Or worse yet, it never hurts again.

[lowbrass]

@Contrapuntal

Cool. None of that was happening in the OP. The cyclist was required by law to stop.

What makes you think that “required to stop” and “have the right of way” are mutually exclusive? The person crossing the street unambiguously has the right of way. If the path is crossing the road at that point, then it is a legal crossing, and cars are required to yield the right of way to pedestrians. The OP is 100% wrong. Frankly, the ignorance being displayed by some in this thread is shocking. If someone is waiting to cross the street (and yes, the OP specifically said “pedestrians who are waiting there to cross”) then you bet your sweet bippy you have to yield. What in the world are you people thinking - that unless a pedestrian darts out in front of your car, that you don’t have to stop? OF COURSE you have to stop.

[Contrapuntal]

@Czarcasm

So you feel it is right that a person wait until traffic is clear in all four lanes before she/he tries to cross the street, not matter how long it takes, but you’ll scream bloody murder if you are inconvenienced for 1 minute by pedestrian traffic? Did it ever occur to you that “someone using a walker” might have someplace specific to get to, and isn’t doing it just to spite you?

No one should ever try to cross four lanes of traffic moving at speeds in excess of 45 mph. except at a stoplight. It is extremely rare for all four lanes to be clear, and the greater stopping distances caused by such speeds make it a very dangerous proposition. Pedestrians who have someplace specific to go to should plan their routes in such a way as to utilize specified crossing areas.

I don’t know where your idea of spite came from. I suspect you, as I certainly never said anything about it.

@lowbrass

What makes you think that “required to stop” and “have the right of way” are mutually exclusive? The person crossing the street unambiguously has the right of way. If the path is crossing the road at that point, then it is a legal crossing, and cars are required to yield the right of way to pedestrians.

The person crossing the street legally has the right of way. It does not mean that every time someone darts into traffic he automatically gains the right to bring traffic to a dead halt.

If someone is waiting to cross the street (and yes, the OP specifically said “pedestrians who are waiting there to cross”) then you bet your sweet bippy you have to yield. What in the world are you people thinking - that unless a pedestrian darts out in front of your car, that you don’t have to stop? OF COURSE you have to stop.

If someone is waiting to cross against a light, for example, he has no right of way. Motorists have to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk, not those who are waiting to cross. As has been explained anecdotally many times in this thread, someone who is in the area of a crosswalk is not necessarily waiting to cross. Pedestrians are required to cross only when it is safe to do so. Once they are in the crosswalk, oncoming traffic must yield.

Think about it. Is it incumbent upon the motorist to scan the sidewalk constantly, ever alert for a potential jaywalker? Of course not. Traffic would either slow down to a crawl, or accidents would increase tenfold. Use a little common sense.

The OP described a cyclist, who, while on his bike, must obey traffic law. It is never OK for a vehicle to drive in a pedestrian crosswalk, at ninety degrees to the flow of traffic. If he wanted to claim pedestrian status, he should have walked his bike across the road.

[Mister_Rik]

@lowbrass

What makes you think that “required to stop” and “have the right of way” are mutually exclusive? The person crossing the street unambiguously has the right of way. If the path is crossing the road at that point, then it is a legal crossing, and cars are required to yield the right of way to pedestrians. The OP is 100% wrong. Frankly, the ignorance being displayed by some in this thread is shocking. If someone is waiting to cross the street (and yes, the OP specifically said “pedestrians who are waiting there to cross”) then you bet your sweet bippy you have to yield. What in the world are you people thinking - that unless a pedestrian darts out in front of your car, that you don’t have to stop? OF COURSE you have to stop.

Here’s how it’s laid out in Washington (bolding mine):

RCW 46.61.235
Crosswalks

(1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section “half of the roadway” means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway.

 (2) **No pedestrian or bicycle shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk, run, or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop**.

 (3) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply under the conditions stated in RCW 46.61.240(2).

 (4) Whenever any vehicle is stopped at a marked crosswalk or at any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection to permit a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass such stopped vehicle.

And perhaps more appropriate to this discussion (bolding mine, irrelevant sections deleted):

RCW 46.61.240
Crossing at other than crosswalks.

(1) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

[Ravenman]

@Contrapuntal

The rules of the road were written for everyone, even those who fancy themselves among the elite.

You nailed me there. I’m so elitist that I will allow old ladies ample time to cross the road without complaining about bringing my car to a stop for several moments. Such good humor is clearly the sine qua non of kings, emperors, and me.

[Contrapuntal]

@Ravenman

You nailed me there. I’m so elitist that I will allow old ladies ample time to cross the road without complaining about bringing my car to a stop for several moments. Such good humor is clearly the sine qua non of kings, emperors, and me.

Allowing old ladies who are legally in the crosswalk ample time is just good manners, and required by law. Halting traffic on your whim to let people cross who are required by law to wait until it is safe to do so, and laughing at the traffic that piles up behind you, is elitist as hell. And dangerous. Unless you can guarantee a clear lane in both directions you are inviting trouble. If you want to be a traffic cop, get a job as one. Otherwise, just leave well enough alone, and don’t take it upon yourself to suspend the rules of the road for your little piece of personal space.

[Ravenman]

You seriously need to get a sense of humor. In an effort to be of assistance, I’ll include a laugh track on future posts addressed to you.

[Contrapuntal]

@Ravenman

You seriously need to get a sense of humor. In an effort to be of assistance, I’ll include a laugh track on future posts addressed to you.

Oh. You were joking. Your replies make a lot more sense now. My apologies.

[lowbrass]

@Contrapuntal

The person crossing the street legally has the right of way. It does not mean that every time someone darts into traffic he automatically gains the right to bring traffic to a dead halt.

Well I agree that it would be stupid to run out into a crosswalk without giving a car time to stop for you. And THAT’S EXACTLY THE POINT. Some people in this thread seem to be arguing that unless the pedestrian is already in the crosswalk, that drivers don’t have to stop. This presents quite the Catch 22 for the pedestrian. If he stands at the curb and patiently waits for the cars to stop, and they never do, he can never cross the street. If he just brazenly walks out into the crosswalk, then he gets hit by a car because that driver (by your reasoning) isn’t required to stop for him, since he “darted into traffic”. Some people in this thread seem to believe that the absurd situation is in existence wherein cars don’t have to stop if a pedestrian goes out into the crosswalk (because he darted into traffic), and ALSO don’t have to stop if he waits at the curb. This is clearly wrong. It’s not only wrong - it’s utterly asinine.

If someone is waiting to cross against a light, for example, he has no right of way.

Duh. Did I say anyone has the right of way at a red light?

Motorists have to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk, not those who are waiting to cross.

Wrong.

As has been explained anecdotally many times in this thread, someone who is in the area of a crosswalk is not necessarily waiting to cross.

That’s a different issue. I’m talking about people who ARE waiting to cross. You’re suggesting the absurd idea that you don’t have to stop unless the pedestrian is already IN the street. But it’s unsafe for a pedestrian to just blindly go out into the street unless he can see that the cars are going to stop for him. Catch-22 for the pedestrian. Absurd.

Pedestrians are required to cross only when it is safe to do so. Once they are in the crosswalk, oncoming traffic must yield.

Nope - that’s not how it works. If you can clearly see that a person is attempting to cross the street, you should stop. Aside from everything else, it’s just plain rude not to.

Think about it. Is it incumbent upon the motorist to scan the sidewalk constantly, ever alert for a potential jaywalker?

This is not a discussion about jaywalkers. Try to keep on the subject.

[lowbrass]

@Phase42

Here’s how it’s laid out in Washington (bolding mine):

We’re not talking about Washington.

And perhaps more appropriate to this discussion (bolding mine, irrelevant sections deleted):

We’re not talking about jaywalking, either.

[Skywatcher]

@Will Repair

And the number one reason I don’t carry a hand gun:
Drivers who look left before entering a street but don’t look in front of their car where I’m walking on the sidewalk.

Allow me to tack on “Drivers who only look left before entering a one-way street but don’t look right where no traffic is coming from and where I’m walking on the sidewalk.”

Praise the county for converting nearly all the one-way streets in this neighborhood.

[lowbrass]

This whole thread is interesting. I used to wonder why so many drivers refuse to stop for pedestrians. I figured they were just all self-important assholes. Now I’m starting to realize that a large percentage of drivers don’t even understand that they are supposed to stop for pedestrians. :eek:

[Skywatcher]

@lowbrass

That’s a different issue. I’m talking about people who ARE waiting to cross. You’re suggesting the absurd idea that you don’t have to stop unless the pedestrian is already IN the street. But it’s unsafe for a pedestrian to just blindly go out into the street unless he can see that the cars are going to stop for him. Catch-22 for the pedestrian. Absurd.

Yet that’s what the law is.

My county recently started installing flashing yellow lights at otherwise non-controlled crosswalks. Pedestrians who wish to cross can press a button and make the lights flash, thereby alerting drivers of their intention to cross.

[Ravenman]

@Contrapuntal

Oh. You were joking. Your replies make a lot more sense now. My apologies.

Not a problem. I always think I’m funnier than I actually am, anyways.

So, I guess, move along, folks, nothing more to see here.

[lowbrass]

@Lute Skywatcher

Yet that’s what the law is.

Nah. The statute was already posted:

A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway:

1. At any clearly marked crosswalk, whether at mid-block or at the end of any block;

2. At any regular pedestrian crossing included in the prolongation of the lateral boundary lines of the adjacent sidewalk at the end of a block;

3. At any intersection when the driver is approaching on a highway or street where the legal maximum speed does not exceed 35 miles per hour.

“The driver shall yield to any pedestrian crossing such highway”

To believe that you don’t have to stop for a pedestrian attempting to cross the highway, and that by refusing to stop, you can thwart his attempt to cross, and still be within the spirit of the law, is a willfully obtuse reading of that law, in my opinion.

p.s. In California it’s explicitly stated in the vehicle code:

21952. The driver of any motor vehicle, prior to driving over or upon any sidewalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian approaching thereon.

[lowbrass]

@Lute Skywatcher

Yet that’s what the law is.

My county recently started installing flashing yellow lights at otherwise non-controlled crosswalks. Pedestrians who wish to cross can press a button and make the lights flash, thereby alerting drivers of their intention to cross.

Another interesting thing to note: If the law really meant that you didn’t have to stop for pedestrians waiting to cross the street, people would be legally within their rights to ignore the flashing yellow lights so long as no pedestrian is actually IN the street. That can’t be right.

[Skywatcher]

@lowbrass

Nah. The statute was already posted:
“The driver shall yield to any pedestrian crossing such highway”

To believe that you don’t have to stop for a pedestrian attempting to cross the highway, and that by refusing to stop, you can thwart his attempt to cross, and still be within the spirit of the law, is a willfully obtuse reading of that law, in my opinion.

It’s not nice but it’s not illegal either.

Another interesting thing to note: If the law really meant that you didn’t have to stop for pedestrians waiting to cross the street, people would be legally within their rights to ignore the flashing yellow lights so long as no pedestrian is actually IN the street. That can’t be right.

You missed this part:

B. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection A of this section, at intersections or crosswalks where the movement of traffic is being regulated by law-enforcement officers or traffic control devices, the driver shall yield according to the direction of the law-enforcement officer or device.

ETA: if drivers are requried to stop without those lights, why would they have been added in the first place?