> so they should have appropriate distance from anything in front of them, and go slow enough to stop
This doesn't make sense. Crossing pedestrians go across the road, so if you are driving on a lane next to the sidewalk, then you could only go in first gear hovering the brakes, because any pedestrian on the sidewalk could start to cross the road in ~one second or less and would have right of way. Basically all streets would be zebra crossings. Obviously not how it works.
>You should not be crossing when cars are traveling at any speed other than zero, that's what the pedestrian crossing lights are for.
You would never finish crossing then. Lots of times there are cars traveling in the lanes that are approaching the intersection, and you have no way of knowing if they are paying attention or not to the traffic lights.
At low speeds, you can eyeball them sufficiently decreasing their speed and confirm they are stopping, but at high speeds, it is impossible to tell.
>Pedestrians always have the right of way including when breaking the law.
This is not true, nor does it make sense. If you are in the middle of the highway going 70 mph and someone is standing on the side of the road wanting to cross you do not have to yield and stop your vehicle. Stopping in the middle of the highway is dangerous since it isn't excepted.
> it's someone taking one step to order the cars to stop. This would be fine if there was a "reasonable stopping rate" clause, but it doesn't sound like there is.
Rest assured, no car driver ever stops in this situation unless the pedestrian is at a zebra crossing.
> causing them to do things like step into a crosswalk unexpectedly after a car is already halfway through the intersection.
Every place I’ve lived in the US, the pedestrian’s right of way is maintained as long as they enter the crosswalk before the car does, and the status of the adjoining intersection is immaterial. In California law, there’s legally a crosswalk at every intersection with sidewalks, even if there aren’t any markings on the road. A green signal doesn’t absolve a driver of these responsibilities; just like with a blind corner, drivers must slow down to a speed where they can react appropriately to pedestrians.
Pedestrians are so rare, however, that cars don’t know how to deal with them. I’ve never seen a driver in the US stop for someone who is waiting to enter a crosswalk, only ones that have actually started to cross.
>a pedestrian in the UK can cross the road anywhere and I believe cars have to stop and make way.
Speaking as a UK driver (and pedestrian) - no, that's not really the case. At least not that pedestrians have right of way. I mean cars will hit the brakes to avoid killing you but I wouldn't recommend relying on that. The only place they changed the right of way recently is at turnings with 'give way' markings as shown in your link.
>>In the case of jaywalking, the answer is simple. You just make it legal. Cars can slow down.
> Mmmm I dunno about that. Drivers have minimum reaction times and cars have stopping distances
Actually in many countries like the Netherlands and the UK, inside the city pedestrians have priority (right of way) over traffic everywhere. If a pedestrian crosses you stop, no jaywalking BS.
>Is it really too much to ask for pedestrians to look left before crossing?
Yes, is that even a real question? A pedestrian with a walk signal should be able to cross without looking for traffic. They shouldn't need to anticipate that the car approaching a red light is going to just roll into the crosswalk without stopping.
> (d) People do pay attention when they cross the road. You have to, because cars can turn right at a red light and, even though they're meant to yield to pedestrians, they don't.
> Most cars will immediately stop if they see you’re about to cross the street. It takes some getting used to at first. Pedestrians are given first priority, a concept alien in India.
> But crossing streets is generally a huge pain: you can only do so along zebra crossings, which are always at signals, and you have to wait for the pedestrian signal to show the walking sign. (There are signals for pedestrians just as there are for cars.) At busy intersections, you sometimes have to wait for more than a minute to get to cross. I honestly prefer the “risk your life and cross from anywhere, anytime” model - it’s faster.
Heh, Dutch here, I'd like to regard the zebra as a safety net for those who cannot walk quick. The elder, but also people who are ill, during bad weather, or parents with small children (like myself). When I am alone and commute to work, YOLO, I will manage (and I do take some risks to ensure I make it to say a bus or train). But when I am with one or both of my small children then I really appreciate a feature like this.
Same with our legal responsibility cars have over bikes. Cars drive so much faster than 100 years ago (compare with "A Trip Down Market Street" from 1906).
When I am with my kids I try to follow the traffic laws by the rulebook because they learn from observation.
>but it's ok to cross the road yourself at points where there's no marked crossing
I'm not sure that it's viewed as OK, but yes, absolutely, people will do this. People will actively walk past a marked crossing, and 10 - 20 meters down the road walk straight out into traffic.
It's amazingly absurd. Rather than wait a few minutes for a green light, some people will prefer to run between moving cars in an attempt to save a little time.
> and told me that you have to always stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk regardless of the traffic signal
Well she's right; of course you have to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. You can't wilfully hit someone and just say 'my right of way' and be all in the clear.
I think in the UK pedestrians actually always have priority, as long as they are travelling in a straight line and you as a driver are making some kind of turn. So for example a road joining another road at a T junction, pedestrians crossing the joining road have priority over cars, regardless of lights or markings.
> I avoid the same crossing when I'm on foot, even though it has a sign that says, "state law: stop for pedestrians in crosswalk." I have never seen a vehicle stop for a pedestrian in that crosswalk, even police.
I take the existence of such signs as strong evidence that the intersection is dangerous. They seem to be added to cover the asses of the city/state/etc., not because they are effective.
> For example, in NYC, there's nothing at all uncommon about a pedestrian beginning to cross the street in front of you and approaching the area of your lane where you will shortly be. Pedestrians typically then stop about a foot away from your lane, let you drive past them, and then continue walking. If a car slammed on the brakes in this situation, it would likely cause more accidents than not braking would cause.
> On the contrary, in Tempe, a pedestrian starting to do the exact same thing as above is likely much more a case of them not realizing your car is coming at all, in which case slamming on the brakes is appropriate.
And in many SEA country you're expected to just drive around a pedestrian crossing the road (or a cow lying on it).
> for the purpose of keeping traffic flow orderly and efficient. Not sure why this should be any difference
Because I'm saying that the act of crossing the road _itself_ should not be illegal - merely the act of crossing it unsafely. By definition, this is not disruptive to traffic flow.
> why pedestrians should not be expected to follow traffic laws
They should. This is begging the question - I'm saying that the law itself is flawed, not that a law should exist and be flouted.
> why the law should allow pedestrians to step into traffic whenever and wherever they want
This is a strawman. Pedestrians should be allowed to step into _roads_ (not into traffic) whenever and wherever it is safe to do so.
>I am struggling to reconcile how the pedestrian does not have the right of way in both these cases.
A pedestrian jaywalking does certainly not have "the right of way". That doesn't mean the car doesn't still have an obligation to avoid hitting them. The rules of the road are redundant for a reason, one party not doing what they're supposed to should not cause a crash.
This doesn't make sense. Crossing pedestrians go across the road, so if you are driving on a lane next to the sidewalk, then you could only go in first gear hovering the brakes, because any pedestrian on the sidewalk could start to cross the road in ~one second or less and would have right of way. Basically all streets would be zebra crossings. Obviously not how it works.
reply