Brilliant. Really, this response is as brilliant as any you have made so far.
There have been no cites, aside from California perhaps, where motorists must yield to pedestrians who are not in the crosswalk. If I am wrong, please indicate where.
Years ago I worked as a chef at a country club. On one occasion, a dishwasher was taking an unusually long break. I went down to the break room, and found him sitting at a table, elbows on it, one hand cupping his chin, another holding a cigarette, his ass squarely in the seat of a chair, both feet planted firmly on the floor. “C’mon man, time to get back to work,” I said. “I was just getting ready to go,” he answered.
I suppose in your world, what he was doing counts as pot washing. Oddly enough, not a pot had been washed.
I learned to drive in California where the rule is: if a pedestrian is in the crosswalk, don’t hit them. I got a ticket in Washington for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk when the person had just stepped off at the far end (I was traveling west on a divided road and they were at the south end).
Seems that in Washington, you can’t drive through a crosswalk if the pedestrian is anywhere in it.
Please quit dragging California into this; lowbrass is wrong here, too.
**What fuck does in the crosswalk mean to you? ** You cannot possibly be this thick. How in the hell can you be in the crosswalk unless your feet are touching the asphalt in the crosswalk? Levitation? Astral projection?
Goddamn what a dumbass.
If your clothes are on the bedroom floor are they in the laundry hamper? I mean, that’s where they are going to end up, right? If your dick is in your hand is it in Paris Hilton’s mouth? I imagine that sooner or later, the odds favor you there as well. If your mouth is in gear, is your brain anywhere near the same zip code?
You may well be the single most obstinately stupid idiot I have had the displeasure to encounter in quite some time.
Go get your mom and have her explain Nametag’s post to you. And then do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up.
Sorry, I had forgotten that lowbrass got sidewalk & crosswalk confused.
I’ve noticed that lowbrass has a habit of taking very unpopluar stances in debate and arguing them to hell. I’m beginning to wonder if there might be some ulterior motive at work…
There’s a crosswalk that I almost get run over using every day that drives me insane. It’s on a fairly busy Chicago street, only two lanes, and the side on which I enter it has a stop sign right at the crosswalk, so cars always stop right there and I can enter it with no problem. Cars going the other way, however, have no stop sign, and generally just floor it on through without any consideration for the person crossing the street in the crosswalk. I’ve gotten to the point where I’ll straight-up stop and stand in the crosswalk, blocking people from plowing through until they slow down, because I’m sick of being almost-clipped every time I walk through it. I even started approaching a guy’s car last time, all Grand Theft Auto “I need that shit you drive!”-style.
Yep, that’s about right. You generally have to hold an arm out with your palm out to make sure cars stop for you here, and make sure you make eye contact with the driver. Always an important point. If you don’t make eye contact with the driver, assume s/he doesn’t see you.
When I was a kid, we took a trip out to Aspen as a friend of ours was a housekeeper for a rather wealthy gentleman. One of my most lasting memories from the trip was the fact that cars in Aspen seemingly stopped the instant you stepped off the sidewalk onto the crosswalk. It was truly an amazing and powerful experience. It had never occurred to me that this is actually the norm in a lot of places. I thought it was just some polite quirk of Aspen.
It seems rude to me to stop, based on my experience being the pedestrian in the exact same situation. By stopping you actually DELAY the pedestrian. How is it rude to help them cross faster? In case I didn’t clarify the scenario I was presenting clearly enough, let me present it again from the pedestrian point of view. I’m waiting to cross the street. There is a pack of cars coming on an otherwise unbusy road. There is a large gap behind the pack of cars during which I can cross without affecting any cars whatsoever. The last car is approaching. If it continues at speed, it will pass in two seconds, and I will be free to cross. Instead, it takes 5 or 6 seconds (or more) to slow down and come to a stop so that I can cross in front of it. And since I, personally, would wait until it was stopped before going into the street, that means it causes me a delay and I cross the street wishing the car had just kept going.
So, the options are: 1) keep going and cause no delay to the pedestrian or the driver, or 2) stop and cause a delay for both the pedestrian AND the driver.
Seems like a no-brainer to me. (Oh, and the only one I’ve seen “freak out” in this thread is you.) And with that I’m done debating with you–you’re willfully obtuse and I’m one of many who is beginning to question your sincerity. I’ll just content myself with the fact that I know what I’ve said, and other people in the thread with reading comprehension skills know what I’ve said, and if you can’t understand it or feel the pathological need to read some other meaning into it, then that’s your problem and doesn’t affect me.
How many lanes in each direction? If it was only one lane each way, then by the letter of the relevant law (which I quoted in an earlier post), the pedestrian was within one lane of you and so you were required to stop. If there were two or more lanes each way, then the officer erred.
Well my goodness! It’s almost identical to the Washington law! 
applause
Seattle seems awfully good this way, too. I don’t live there, but I’ve visited several times, and got around on foot while I was there. Granted, I was in the touristy section of downtown, but there was a lot of foot traffic and the downtown drivers seemed to be remarkably courteous when it came to people crossing the street.
I have not noticed him before, but if this is *typical *of his schtick, then he is apparently just a chain yanker. I’m sorry I fell for it.
It does seem like all his Pit posts–and it looks like the majority of his posts are in the Pit–are a variaton on that theme. It’s entirely possible that all this is just coincidence.
Yeah, I’m really not seeing the four page argument here.
There are some intersections that really suck – the ones where one direction has a light or a sign and the other doesn’t. These are really annoying for pedestrians because especially in heavy traffic it’s going to be ages before you can cross.
Now that I think of it, you have the same problem as a CAR at those intersections. Say you’re pulling out into traffic from your local supermarket. You don’t have a light; you have a sign. The other fellows don’t have a light because you’re in a parking lot, not on a street. They do not have to stop. They will not stop – that is, they won’t unless they’re rather misguidedly kind. The nicest thing they can do is to stop before the exit from the parking lot when the traffic in front of them is stopped (rather than landing themselves square in the egress so nobody can get in or out).
Stopping for every intersection for pedestrians regardless of street lights or signs is dangerous because no driver should reasonably expect halted cars in the middle of a street without legal reason. All the traffic laws quoted above indicate that pedestrians must cross legally – in other words, with the streetlights if there are any and in a gap in traffic otherwise – and drivers must stop for legally-crossing pedestrians.
This is why our mommies taught us “Stop, Look, and Listen” rather than “Waltz Out Merrily”.
WTF? Are you accusing me of trolling, sonny? Fuck you. I’ve read quite a few of your posts in other threads, and pretty much every stance you take on almost any subject just makes me scratch my head in wonder. Now that you got a couple of allies in your pile-on, you’re gonna act like your shit don’t smell? Lick my hairy balls.
I think all of you are taking an overly-literal interpretation of the law. When it says “crossing the street in the crosswalk”, that’s as opposed to either not crossing the street, or jaywalking. The laws don’t say “in the crosswalk” because they want to necessitate that the pedestrian is actually in front of your car before you actually stop; they say “in the crosswalk” to differentiate it from jaywalking. It doesn’t mean that if someone is clearly heading out to cross the street, that the correct thing to do is say, “Aha, his foot isn’t touching asphalt yet” and rudely blow by him.
You don’t have to agree with me, but you also don’t have to be obtuse and pretend like you don’t understand my point.
Cock.
It says nothing at all about what a motorist should do regarding pedestrians who are not in the crosswalk. It says nothing at all about pedestrians who are jaywalking. Laws that proscribe behavior do not automatically sanction every other behavior.
“In the crosswalk” means “in the crosswalk.” In those situations, motorists do not have to yield to pedestrians who are *not *in the crosswalk, not even if they hired a team of angels, a marching band, and Al Sharpton to announce their *intention *to enter the crosswalk.
This is what you just don’t get. The pedestrian has to be actually in the crosswalk before the compunction to yield attaches, no matter how much you wish it otherwise.
I said “might”, dumbass. I also said, “It’s entirely possible that all this is just coincidence.”
If I wanted to accuse you of trolling, I’d have come right out and said so. Your being so defensive does bring to mind a certain Shakespearean phrase about protesting.