I would say “yes”. I know how fast I walk. I know how long it will take me to get across the street. I can judge how far away the approaching car is and roughly gauge its speed, and make a rational decision as to whether or not it’s safe for me to begin crossing the street. If I see that I can be out of the path of the approaching car before it reaches me, I proceed. If I gauge that the car will have to come to a stop (suddenly or not), I wait for it to pass. What I trust is that the driver is not going to speed up after I’ve determined I have time to cross.
That’s insane. If that were the case, you would have to step in front of a car and just hope that it stops. It’s not safe to step into the street until the cars have stopped. You’re basically saying that the only way to exercise ones right of way is to step out into traffic. I can tell you from personal experience that there are way too many maniacs out there on the road for that to be an even remotely safe thing to do.
How about you guys not jumping in on other people’s arguments? You’re saying something different from what Opal is saying, and my question was directed at Opal.
But to address what you’re saying, this idea that you’re supposed to dodge the cars when the law clearly states that you have the right of way is fundamentally wrong in my opinion. Why even bother to give the pedestrian the right of way if that’s how you’re crossing the street?
I was in no way “quite adamant that the gap doesn’t have to be big enough for you to get past the car”.
Let’s keep things in context, shall we? People were squabbling about the supposed “catch 22” of cars not needing to stop until a pedestrian was already in the crosswalk, but if cars don’t stop to let the person into the crosswalk, then how will they get there? I was attempting to clarify the point that the people on the “already in the crosswalk” side were saying by illustrating a manner in which a pedestrian could get into the crosswalk fairly safely. For me, that “safe gap” would be one where if I hustle (not run, just walk briskly) I could clear the car even if it didn’t stop. I would also, personally, never start crossing a road unless I had a sufficient gap on both sides. But then, I also said that I, personally, feel that it’s dangerous as a pedestrian to cross a busy street (crosswalk or not, law-on-your-side or not) without a traffic signal to stop cars. You, of course, took my statement that it’s dangerous as somehow meaning that it was illegal or some shit (dunno wtf you meant, your words were “that’s utterly wrong”…what is? that it’s dangerous? I’m wrong that it’s dangerous?!), and implied that I felt “Oh, it’s a busy street so the pedestrians are SOL”.
I think that you assumed I was on a particular side in this whole argument and then assigned the stated views of other debate participants on “that side” to me, regardless of whether or not I’d actually expressed them myself, and now it’s biting you in the ass.
No, solid yellow means “caution”; flashing yellow means “slow down and proceed with caution.” In other words:
Bullshit. You’re the one who’s arguing that stopping to allow pedestrians off a sidewalks and into a crosswalk is a reasonable interpretation of the law. Seems the folks on the county board don’t agree.
Yes, it does. “Virginia law requires that the driver of any vehicle on a highway yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing a highway…” Until that pedestrian steps off the curb, they are not in the process of crossing.
No shit. Still not illegal though unless that particlar crosswalk has traffic controls.
Perhaps your being in car-crazy California has something to do with that?
I can tell you from personal experience that there are hardly any maniacs out there on the road for stepping into traffic to be an even remotely dangerous thing to do. I’ve only encountered two around here and I was in the middle of a crosswalk both times!
Correction: three. The third time I was also in a crosswalk.
Okay, so I have a (legitimate) question. I’ve read most of the topic but I have to admit, a lot of it got me even more confused.
I’m not a driver, I’ll start out by saying, so I don’t know ALL of the driving laws, however I do know a bit more (I think) then other non-drivers.
What, exactly, is a legal crosswalk then? As in, one that cars have to stop (both sides) if somebody is crossing? I know that school crosswalks are like this…those have signs too. But what else is a “marked” crosswalk?
I’m asking because there’s this crosswalk right outside the apartment complex I live in. In fact, you can even see it if you go to MSN live maps and type in the address 3319 North 7th Ave, Phoenix Arizona (no worries, it’s not a specific address, it’s the address of a BUILDING of about 15 apartments, none of which are mine) and look to the left of where the marker is (the crosswalk that runs east to west).
NOBODY ever stops for this crosswalk. Nobody. A person can be standing right in the middle of the street ON THE CROSSWALK (where the turning lane is) and cars will zoom by on both ends. This baffles me because it’s clearly marked just like school crosswalks are. I mean in that painted line pattern. So…uh…is this not a crosswalk that cars should be stopping at if someone is currently in the middle of it?
And yeah, I’ve read the first page of this topic and know that, in the OP’s case, the person was waiting to cross, not actually in the crosswalk yet. But I seem to have read a few posts in here that said, even barring someone walking across, cars shouldn’t have to stop. And no, there is no, bikers/peds are required by law to wait sign either.
It was always my understanding that if someone is in one of those crosswalks and crossing the street, the cars must stop on both sides.
Nobody hardly ever does at this one and most drivers actually beep the horn, yell at you, and give hand gestures that isn’t the peace sign. One girl actually was hit a few years back (crossing the same walk) and she didn’t live.
So if I’m mistaken, I hope someone can clear it up for me. If I’m not, then FUCK those drivers who don’t give the right of way to pedestrians at those actual stops (note, this is not a “fuck you” to the OP as the cases are different). I’ve been nearly run over myself many times at that walk.
Well duh, it’s 7th Ave in Phoenix! Close to the center of town! Of course nobody stops! Drivers in Phoenix are just scary in general, mind you.
Hahah, true that. I forgot you used to live here, Opal.
This is a discussion forum with multiple participants, not private e-mail. And technically, you are being contrary to what just about everybody else is saying, anyway. Opal and I (and many others) are saying essentially the same thing: the pedestrian is not “crossing the road/street/highway” until he or she has actually stepped onto the road/street/highway.
In fact, in Washington (and perhaps in other states) a car doesn’t even have to stop for a pedestrian who is in the crosswalk until that pedestrian is within one lane of the car. So if I’m crossing a three-lane street, stepping into the left lane, traffic in the far right lane doesn’t have to stop until I’ve entered the middle lane; as soon as I enter the far right lane, the traffic in the left lane can legally proceed.
There is a huge difference between “dodg[ing] the cars” and “waiting my turn”. I don’t know who said it originally, but I’ve always loved this quote: “In America we have many rights that are worth dying for. The right of way is not one of them.”
Only because every statute cited says so.
This is what’s known as a false dichotomy. Those choices are not the only two. The pedestrian can wait until is is safe to cross; i.e., until no cars are close enough to hit him.
You said
You offered no caveats. I showed you an example of a person crossing a street who unambiguously does* not* have the right of way. Duh.
Maybe in California, but not in the other 49. How is a driver to know the intention of someone standing on a sidewalk?
Again, how can you tell?
Already debunked. There are more than two choices.
Oh, it’s bad manners now, is it? Are you really keen on legislating politeness? Does the government have to do all your thinking for you? Oops. Sorry. Obviously a rhetorical question.
Actually, it is. See my cited definition above.
Our school has one of these “mysterious” crosswalks with a sign and everything. Crosswalks with a sign that says 'Pedestrian Crossing" seems pretty clear to me that the pedestrian has right of way. I cross this street several times a day, and almost every day some yahoo blows through and almost hits me. Sometimes there is like 30 people or more crossing (busy campus) and people come right up to the pedestrians real fast and stop suddenly.
I know it is a pain to sit and wait for people to cross, but it is in the middle of campus, and the sign clearly is marked for pedestrian right of way.
I think these people that don’t want to stop should be pitted (the ones in my story, not the OP).
I can’t agree with you about this one. Sorry, but I don’t know you, or anyone else on the road. You’re a total stranger, and sadly, I see people dart out into traffic with only a cursory glance, expecting traffic to stop for them, all the time. So when I’m in an area where people walk a lot, I’m pretty careful to slow down below the speed limit. I’m not protecting you (though it works like that, too), I’m protecting me.
That’s the opposite of what Phase was saying:
I know it’s the opposite of what he’s saying. I’m saying I don’t trust some random stranger on the street, because I’ve seen them do it repeatedly. Granted, I hang out around the University of Tennessee, so my sample is a little unusual, but the point is that I have direct experience with having to dodge careless pedestrians, so I drive slow. Sometimes, they look like they’re about to cross and don’t, and sometimes they seem to plan for the absolute worst time to dart across. Why? No idea. But I take precautions against any possible error, because I could kill somebody if they do.
Man, you guys got it easy. When I go out jogging I don’t know how many mother fuckers won’t stop at the limit line when I’m getting to an intersection. One of these days I’m going to run right across someone’s hood.
It’s just that your complaint invoked mine about drivers who are in such a hurry that they act like losing two minutes robs them of any time for sex.
That seems to be true in Orlando, Florida. Two drivers here who killed pedestrians were not charged because the street lighting was dim.
This seems to be only a problem in ligatious America. In other countries drivers watch where they’re going but in America drivers watch out for getting hit.
Ah, okay. You agree with his practices but not those of college students who apparently are still in “I’m invincible!” mode?
I believe he’s trying to be safe, and I wish my practices didn’t annoy him. But I’ve seen enough people simply assume I know they’re planning to casually dash across the street that I won’t take the chance. I’m sure he’s doing the safe thing; I just don’t know whether it’s him or an apathetic college student.