I think most people expect the pedestrian to wait for a gap in traffic that is long enough to allow him or her to step into the crosswalk without the next car having to slam on the brakes. The pedestrian would then be in the crosswalk and the oncoming car would slow down and stop. This means that no car has to guess if the pedestrian is going to cross and come to a preemptive stop. Some streets have heavy enough traffic that such gaps are hard to come by… I would suggest those would be bad places for a pedestrian to cross where there was not a traffic control light (either an intersection or a crosswalk that has a light). Regardless of the law, it just seems like a pretty big risk. (Mind you, if it’s the only place for miles around that you can cross that street, you have no choice, but most of the time that isn’t the case)
Or pedestrian-controlled crosswalk lights. 
How is that “or”? That falls within what I was mentioning.
Just making sure. 
Flashing yellow doesn’t mean stop. There are some intersections with flashing red lights. That means you have to stop.
You’re required to stop when a pedestrian is crossing the street. Obviously, the lights were added to alert motorists when a pedestrian is trying to cross the street. It’s a good idea, but I wouldn’t take it as evidence that the absence of flashing yellow lights means you don’t have to stop.
Right. They mean “yield”, in this case “yield to the pedestrians.” By the way, these crosswalks are accompanied by signs that read something like “traffic must stop when lights are flashing.”
TPTB clearly felt the law
wasn’t enough to allow pedestrians off the sidewalks at these locations. That tells me they don’t agree with your opinion.
If most people think that, then most people are wrong. I don’t believe most people think that, though. A pedestrian obviously has a duty not to run out in front of a car without giving it time to stop, but the idea that it’s the pedestrian’s duty to wait for a gap such that no car is affected in any way by his crossing the street, is absurd. That’s backwards. The pedestrian has the right-of-way, not the motorist. You are reversing the very definition of “right-of-way”.
The fact that some motorists may be overly cautious and stop for no reason doesn’t change the fact that you should stop when someone is trying to cross the street. It’s generally fairly obvious to me when someone is going to cross the street.
And by the way, no driver should ever have to “slam on the brakes” because another car stopped for a pedestrian. If anyone does that, then they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing, and don’t belong behind the wheel of an automobile.
That’s utterly wrong. Doesn’t matter if there’s a light; if there is a CROSSWALK, then you need to be watching out for pedestrians. If the traffic engineers put a crosswalk there, then they intended for pedestrians to cross there. To say “Oh, it’s a busy street so the pedestrians are SOL” is bullshit.
Thank God I live in a state where at least some drivers exercise common courtesy.
This is very illuminating, though. I’m getting a very clear picture of what’s in the minds of those clods who refuse to stop for pedestrians.
No, but these laws are fairly uniform across the country. The point of the bit I bolded in the first law specifically refers to a pedestrian who is in the roadway, not one who is standing on the sidewalk.
At any pedestrian crossing, in the absence of pedestrian crossing signals or traffic lights, the pedestrian is required to yield the right of way to traffic. If it is unsafe for the pedestrian to cross at an uncontrolled point (i.e. there is too much traffic without a break), it is incumbent upon the pedestrian to proceed to a controlled crossing and cross there when the signals allow him to do so, or simply be patient and wait.
Did I mention (yes I did) that I was a pedestrian for 14+ years? And that I don’t want cars stopping in inappropriate places to let me cross? Because I’m not going to cross in those situations, and the driver is holding up traffic at best, and risking an accident at worst. Drivers who stop in inappropriate places give less-experienced pedestrians the idea that they’re entitled to cross wherever they want to.
This is referring to drivers entering or leaving say, a parking lot, where they have to drive over the sidewalk. In that instance, the driver must yield to a pedestrian who is walking on the sidewalk. We have the same law in Washington, where I personally witnessed a driver being pulled over and reprimanded (don’t know if he was ticketed) after he pulled out of a parking lot and directly into my path as I was approaching the driveway on the sidewalk.
No, vehicle codes aren’t always uniform.
I disagree. If there’s no crosswalk then he is jaywalking, which is illegal. But if there is a crosswalk, then cars are legally required to yield. If the pedestrian were required to wait for an opening without affecting any cars at all, then the law would be superfluous. You’re inverting the very definition of “yield”.
Now THIS I absolutely agree with. I hate when cars stop for jaywalkers, for exactly the reasons you state. But we’re not talking about jaywalkers.
You’re right. Sorry - I misread that as “crosswalk” when it said sidewalk. Please disregard that part of my post.
Virginia law says nothing about pedestrians having the right-of-way on a sidewalk.
I’d just love to see any of you try to argue a ticket in court with the defense, “But your honor - he was only trying to cross the street; he wasn’t actually in the street.” 'Taint gonna work, folks.
The law is what it is, no matter how much you want it to be otherwise.
How’s the driver supposed to know this hypothetical pedestrian wasn’t simply waiting for a bus? Or a friend? Or checking his shoelaces?
Exactly the case in the first example I gave in my first post: I merely happened to be standing on the sidewalk near the crosswalk, with no intention to cross, yet a driver stopped and wouldn’t budge until I crossed.
The way I read all these laws, traffic has the right of way until the pedestrian actually steps into the roadway.
It’s also not even remotely what I said.
I said that the pedestrian should wait for a gap in traffic big enough to allow him or her to enter the crosswalk without the car slamming on the brakes. It was previously being suggested that there was no way for the “yield right of way to pedestrians already in the crosswalk” could take place because cars didn’t stop before the pedestrian stepped off the curb. This isn’t true. The pedestrian can wait for a gap big enough to allow the next cars a reasonable amount of distance to see them and come to a stop.
Also not even in the same ballpark as what I said. I said that regardless of the law, it’s risky to cross a busy street.
Nowhere have I said that cars shouldn’t be looking out for pedestrians, and nowhere have I said that cars shouldn’t stop for them. You’re making a whole assload of assumptions based on…what? No idea. But don’t put words in my mouth. They taste funny after you’ve handled them.
You may want to try on this whole “reading comprehension” thing. I hear it kicks ass.
Not from my posts, you’re not. Nowhere have I said that cars shouldn’t be looking out for pedestrians, and nowhere have I said that cars shouldn’t stop for them. Nowhere in this thread have I even hinted at my own behavior in any of these situations.
(ran out of time to edit the previous post)
Dunno. Flashing yellow means “caution”, not yield. The ones here don’t have signs telling you to stop. Don’t know what “wasn’t enough to allow pedestrians off the sidewalks” means.
You might want to try on this whole “don’t say a bunch of shit and then frantically backpedal like a motherfucker” thing.
Show me where I did that?
O.K., seriously though, Opal - I’ll address exactly what you’re saying. Since you think I misrepresent you, I’ll try to respresent your position as accurately as I can:
So you tell me if this is what you’re saying: It sounds like you’re suggesting that a pedestrian look for a gap in traffic, then proceed into the crosswalk. BUT, you’re quite adamant that the gap doesn’t have to be big enough for you to get past the car without it stopping; the gap only has to be big enough so that the car doesn’t have to “slam on the brakes”. Is that right so far?
If so, let us proceed. Then what you are saying is that a pedestrian is supposed to step into the path of the car, and then what? just trust that the car will stop? I’m just trying to understand your position here. Is that what you’re saying? Is that the correct way to cross the street in your opinion?
Yes, the law is the law, and the law does not say a pedestrian has to be IN the street in order to have the right of way. That’s your misinterpretation of the law.
It’s always obvious to me when someone is crossing the street. You have to figure it out, just like you figure out a million things every time you get behind the wheel. How do you know another car is making a right turn and isn’t just parked at the curb with its turn signal accidentally on? How are you supposed to know if a car is going to make a left turn or a u-turn? You keep your eyes open and your brain engaged, that’s how. It’s not rocket science. Why would it be such a tragedy to you if someone erred on the side of caution and stopped for a person who wasn’t crossing the street? Is that 5 second delay going to ruin your life? People do this stuff every day and it’s really not a problem.
Here’s one really good clue if you really can’t figure it out: If they’re standing right on the edge of the curb looking at you with an expression of “are you going to stop for me?”, chances are they’re trying to cross the street.