Um, I just took the written test in CA, and pedestrians DO have the right of way. Sorry.
Inky
Are there cases of a ped purposely trying to get slightly injured to collect?
Ain’t just in crossing roads that dipshit mothers put their kids at risk. The conductor on a train I was taking to town one day about blew a gasket when a mom with two little kids in tow decided she couldn’t wait a couple of minutes to get to the shopping plaza, and tried to scoot underneath the train while it was picking up passengers at a station. He chewed her a new one (PG language for the kids’ sake but brutal) for that insanely idiotic stunt.
Maybe. But against a CITY BUS? A pedestrian who gets hit by a city bus going at 40 miles an hour doesn’t get injured; she gets killed.
Um, nope. Check the California Vehicle Code yet again. And if you want, you can check the link another poster provided upthread.
To expand: Pedestrians, even in California, do not automatically have the right of way. There actually are gasp places where the vehicle has the right of way.
This drives me crazy. Recently, the city of Hamilton and other responsible people for this kind of thing decided to rework Main Street in front of McMaster University. The university got a more logical car access (main entrance), the crosswalks were spruced up, complete with non-slip roadway and little holding corrals on the median for 2-step crossings.
Thing is, they added a lane in each direction, and basically made it a lot easier for cars to speed through that area. Also, they didn’t move any crosswalks to the places where pedestrian traffic actually wants to be (closer to certain campus buildings, rather than across parking lots and fields with respect to the buildings). So pretty much every day, driving through that stretch of road, drivers have to watch out for students and staff sprinting across the street between lights, even with traffic coming at them. I don’t know how many close calls I’ve had over the past 5 years that I’ve been living here. The sheer stupidity of these people just boggles the mind!
Just last year, they finally put up a pedestrian-activated light system at a very popular crosswalk on Cootes drive. Thing is, a lot of students can’t be bothered to hit the stupid button and wait 30 seconds for the light to change, so they just walk right through. This past winter, a student was killed at that crosswalk. Oddly, this behaviour has not changed, and I recall reading a local paper letter-to-the-editor from an irate student ranting about “pedestrian right of way”. Sorry, kid. Running out in front of a moving car, or in the case of the student that was killed, a snow plow, is not a good idea, regardless of “right of way” or not. It’s just plain stupid.
I’m glad I’m moving away from here, because I am honestly scared I’ll hit a student one day.
In Spain pedestrians have the right of way at pedestrian crossings. They also have it at traffic lights but only when the man’s walking, green, and on the bottom (which may or may not be accompanied by chirpy noises).
But isn’t the word “jaywalking” English? In Spanish we just say “crossing in the wrong spot”.
In the US of A (and other countries in the Americas) it is legal to cross like that, but it’s also legal for vehicles to turn right when their light is red. If pedestrians are trying to cross, the vehicle is supposed to not turn - but the key word is “supposed”. Or maybe “brain”, or “eyes”.
Almost got me run over a couple times when I first went to the US.
Well here we don’t enforce those laws.
Come to Ireland. Your head will explode.
Irish people have absolutely no concept of jaywalking.
This is partly because there are so few pedestrian crossings, partly because Irish roads (outside of cities) are quiet, partly because it doesn’t take a genius to work out whether the car at the top of the hill is travelling quickly enough to hit you or not, and partly because no-one enforces any other system.
If it looks safe to cross, we cross. That means that if the road looks empty, we’ll cross when the little green man is red, it means that if traffic is gridlocked we’ll walk between stationary cars, and it means that if the car looks far enough away that it’s not going to kill us, we’ll make a run for it.
It’s how we spot the tourists: they’re the ones standing at the crossings, waiting for the little green man to go off, when the road is completely empty.
As far as I know, if there are no lights, pedestrians have automatic right of way, the exception is if they cross a pedestrian crossing when the light is red, in which case the car does.
My Dad was done for walking on the wrong side of the road in the absence of footpaths back in the 50s/60s. Fined quite a few pence for it too!
Aye, but I bet he had no idea he’d done anything wrong!
There was a terrible accident in NY last month, in which a mother and her two little children were hit by a hit-and-run driver; both children were killed, and we were treated to heart-rending film of the little baby shoes in the street, and the sobbing relatives and the Mylar balloons and teddy bears at the site.
Yes, the driver should have stopped.
But it was only mentioned in passing, deep into the article, that the mother was crossing in the middle of a busy street, after dark, lugging two kids (who should not even have been up at that hour, let alone being tossed into moving traffic by their stupid-ass mother) and her laundry; she basically darted into traffic, when there was a traffic signal a block away.
If she has any surviving children, I hope they are reassigned to relatives.
Course not, this was deep in Co. Monaghan. Even 10 years later Dad was able to hit 50 or 60 driving through Dublin in the early morning, so it was unlikely he would have been clobbered on the back roads near his town 
Of course you don’t- being upside down and all. If you did enforce the laws of physics, you’d fall off the earth into space. 
I’m also going to pit the mother for not understanding enough physics to know why a 3-year-old child might have trouble keeping up with an adult. Poor little kid… 