pedestrian-driver incidents

Here's an incident I was in as the pedestrian (more than once):

Busy intersection. There's a crosswalk. The walk signal turns white
(all lights are red at this point for a split-second). I get 2-4
steps into crosswalk. After a split-second, the oncoming cars still
have the red, however, cars turning right and left into my lane have
the green.

Since I was already in the crosswalk, I believe the car turning right
into me has to stop. Even if we arrived at the crosswalk at the same
time, I believe a right turner on a green light still has to yield to
the pedestrian. Since the walk signal is only good for 2-3 seconds, I
must pass assertively/aggressively if I have any chance of getting
across. Note, if I do not take the chance right from the start, I am
likely to miss the chance by several cars all turning right on green
in front of me.

I was nearly hit by the right turner on green. He must have thought
that since he had a green light and was turning right that he didn't
have to yield to a pedestrian just entering the crosswalk since I
shouldn't have been there. Any comments? Perhaps it is a poorly
designed crosswalk device that doesn't add a few precious moments of
delay to all red lights just to allow the pedestrian an uncontested
jog across the intersection. Comments.

I will never walk that intersection again since I've had a few scares.

The other question that I wanted to add is whether or not a driver has
any legal defense for hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk on a walk
signal in my situation.

"Tim923" > wrote in message
...
> The other question that I wanted to add is whether or not a driver has
> any legal defense for hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk on a walk
> signal in my situation.

Once you're in a crosswalk with the light, you have the right of way. The
driver has to yield; it's the law.

The timer at that intersection is off if you have the signal only a few
seconds. A call to the traffic division of city hall should take care of
that.

In the old days, if a driver cut me off in the intersection, I'd plant my
foot into their rear quarter panel. Only once did a driver stop, and I got
right back in his face when he got out and came at me: "Hey, you: I was in
the cross walk and I'm in the right of way, and you know it. You gonna take
a swing at me and add assault to a simple traffic violation? I have your
plate number and your description. After you get outta jail I'll sue your
arse!" He just called me some names and then split.

I'm not a small guy and I'm in good shape; that may have something to do
with it.

Then again, there are those who eschew crosswalks and lights, then smirk at
you daring you to hit them. I just yell at them: "If I had a cowcatcher on
my front bumper you wouldn't be smiling" or "My car weighs more than your
head, fool--but not by much!"

This isn't a problem in Canada; at least not the places I've been.
Pedestrians and drivers alike mind and respect the crosswalks.

In article >,
Tim923 > wrote:

> The other question that I wanted to add is whether or not a driver has
> any legal defense for hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk on a walk
> signal in my situation.

Your grammar needs improvement. Questions end in a question mark. But
yes, a driver sure would have liability if he hits a pedestrian who is
walking in an intersection if the pedestrian has the right of way, and
possibly even if the pedestrian didn't have the right of way.

In article >,
Tim923 > wrote:
>Since I was already in the crosswalk, I believe the car turning right
>into me has to stop. Even if we arrived at the crosswalk at the same
>time, I believe a right turner on a green light still has to yield to
>the pedestrian.

The vehicle wins a genuine tie, when you both reach the crosswalk
at the same time. That means the bumper reaches the white line as
your foot first touches pavement. Obviously there is no way the
car could stop before entering the crosswalk if it is already there.
There is no requirement for drivers to yield to pedestrians who
are on the curb waiting to cross, and at least in the case of
a midblock crosswalk the law prohibits pedestrians from stepping
close in front of moving vehicles.

Once you are in the crosswalk, and have let vehicles pass which
were too close to stop for you when you entered, you have the
right of way. Although you lose ties when entering the crosswalk,
you win ties in the crosswalk. Drivers must anticipate you moving
forward and stay out of your way. In fact you MUST move forward
if possible because because you only have the right of way while
crossing the street.

In practice, an alert pedestrian will enter the crosswalk in
time to beat turning traffic and have the right of way for the
entire crossing.

--
John Carr )

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:58:20 -0400, Shawn Hearn >
wrote:

>In article >,
>Your grammar needs improvement. Questions end in a question mark.

Sorry.

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 07:35:43 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> wrote:

>"Tim923" > wrote in message
.. .
>> The other question that I wanted to add is whether or not a driver has
>> any legal defense for hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk on a walk
>> signal in my situation.
>
>Once you're in a crosswalk with the light, you have the right of way. The
>driver has to yield; it's the law.
>
>The timer at that intersection is off if you have the signal only a few
>seconds. A call to the traffic division of city hall should take care of
>that.

I agree with this.
A protected left turn signal should turn the corresponding walk signal
to red. You may have the 'right of way' in the situation you describe,
but the car will do far more damage to you than you will to it.


--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

>Your grammar needs improvement. Questions end in a question mark. But
>yes, a driver sure would have liability if he hits a pedestrian who is
>walking in an intersection if the pedestrian has the right of way, and
>possibly even if the pedestrian didn't have the right of way.

This is off topic, but you got me thinking, can't questions be asked
indirectly in the form of a statement

If I had changed the word "question" to "item" above, would that have
been the quick fix?

Examples:

I sort of wanted to know, um, if you wanted to go to the prom with me.

Will you go to the prom with me?

The question is to be or not to be.

>This is off topic, but you got me thinking, can't questions be asked
>indirectly in the form of a statement

oops, deleted the ?

>If I had changed the word "question" to "item" above, would that have
>been the quick fix?

oops, cropped off my old paragraph

"Shawn Hearn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Tim923 > wrote:
>
>> The other question that I wanted to add is whether or not a driver has
>> any legal defense for hitting a pedestrian in a crosswalk on a walk
>> signal in my situation.
>
> Your grammar needs improvement. Questions end in a question mark.

But he hadn't actually asked the question yet, so your point is moot. That
rhymes with coot, doesn't it?

But
> yes, a driver sure would have liability if he hits a pedestrian who is
> walking in an intersection if the pedestrian has the right of way, and
> possibly even if the pedestrian didn't have the right of way.

If at any time a driver causes an accident that the driver could have
reasonably avoided (I know, split infinitive; sue me), then the driver is at
fault. That means if a person was jaywalking, the driver saw the pedestrian
a block away and could have avoided him but still hit him, then the driver
is (at least partly if not completely) liable.