So that he can be hit by a pickup truck.
This is mainly to satisfy my curiousity. Also, sorry for the long post.
Here's my question. Did I cross the road illegally?
I started crossing the road just as the "don't walk" signal started flashing. The driver who was already at a full stop decided that he was going to turn in front of me anyway even though he clearly saw me (among others) going and nearly hit me. I flipped him off, yelled something vulgar at him and continued on. He then stopped his vehicle in the middle of the road and got out to yell at me. I simply yelled out for him to go [expletive deleted] himself and again continued on. He then pulled a u-turn and confronted me in the parking lot of the local eatery I was about to enter. He again berated me with various obscenities and threats of bodily harm. I of course responded in kind (minus the threats... he was big!) and let him know that he was clearly at fault. After the confrontation we went on our ways and that was the end of it.
When I got home I decided to look up who was actually at fault. Here's what I found:
"No pedestrian approaching pedestrian control signals and facing a solid or flashing “don’t walk” indication shall enter the roadway. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (27)."
So since I started crossing after the signal started flashing I am clearly at fault or so I thought. It also said this.
"Subject to subsection (2), when a pedestrian or a person in a wheelchair crossing a roadway within a pedestrian crossover,
(a) is upon the half of the roadway upon which a vehicle or street car is travelling; or
(b) is upon half of the roadway and is approaching the other half of the roadway on which a vehicle or street car is approaching so closely to the pedestrian crossover as to endanger him or her,
the driver of the vehicle or street car shall yield the right of way to the pedestrian or a person in a wheelchair by slowing down or stopping if necessary. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (1)."
This states that even though I was in the crosswalk illegally he was still obligated to yield the way to me. So we're both at fault. Right? Maybe not.
This particular intersection also has a crosswalk countdown signal. This countdown is 20 seconds long and I started crossing at the 18 second mark.
I looked up what my municipality had to say about these countdowns.
"Countdowns on crossing signals help pedestrians decide whether or not to cross a street by showing them how much time remains on the signal phase."
Which suggests that the decision to cross at that time is mine to make and therefor a driver would have to yield to me according to section 140 (1) of the Act. I find this confusing because it doesn't explicitly say that I'm allowed to cross but suggests that I can.
"Subject to subsection (31.1), no traffic control signal system or traffic control signal used in conjunction with a traffic control signal system shall be erected or installed except in accordance with an approval obtained from a person designated to give such approvals by the municipality or other authority that has jurisdiction over the highway or the intersection. 1996, c. 33, s. 14."
Which to me means that the "countdown system" approved by my municipality should be the guidelines followed when crossing. However, because of the vague language used by the municipality describing this system I find it hard to determine who was at fault.
What's your interpretation on this?
This message will self-destruct in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... !