The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Why did the chicken cross the road?
Red Rover
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
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?
The situation:
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:
So since I started crossing after the signal started flashing I am clearly at fault or so I thought. It also said this.
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.
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.
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?
Thanks
This is mainly to satisfy my curiousity. Also, sorry for the long post.
Here's my question. Did I cross the road illegally?
The situation:
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)."
(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?
Thanks
This message will self-destruct in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... !
Red Rover on
0
Posts
but they're listening to every word I say
Think of it this way: if you enter a crosswalk against a red sign and a car has to slam its breaks to stop, you can be fined. If you enter a crosswalk against a red sign and a car fails to slam its breaks (due to say, texting) and kills you, they'll be charged with negligent manslaughter.
Countdown timers are new, the law probably hasn't caught up yet. The caution sign on signals with timers seems to flash a bit early, with the danger off set due to the fact you know know exactly how much time you have. So maybe you weren't entirely in the clear, but he definately wasn't.
In most places, even jaywalkers still have the right of way; if someone tags you, they are automatically at fault. In certain european countries, pedestrians do not have the right of way, and if you get hit, you can get sued for damages to the driver's car. Because fuck you and your flesh sac, apparantly.
Is this explicitly in the code, or a separate bit of information? It doesn't read like part of the law, more like a statement made by some city representative, which would have no weight of law.
Around here, the law didn't change when they started putting in crosswalk signals with timers. It's still illegal to start crossing on anything except the walk signal, basically what's in s. 144. The timer makes it easier for you to safely break the law, apparently. Unless s. 144 was specifically changed or there's a newer bill that changes it, that's still how it is, you were crossing illegally.
HOWEVER, except in some pretty extreme cases, pedestrians in a crosswalk have right of way over traffic, as s. 140 states. Short of throwing yourself up on his hood, the driver would have been at fault if he hit you.
That statement was posted on the official city website's traffic section. I know it's not law but section 14 of the Highway Traffic Act suggests that since it's been approved by the city then those guidelines should be followed. It's because of that statement's wishy washy language that I'm confused. It doesn't clearly state that I have right of way but kind of suggests it.
I completely agree. I should have just ignored him and kept walking. Luckily he didn't make good on his threats.
However, even if you have the right of way, you should protect yourself, because you don't want to die to prove a point about crossing the street.
Of course, he's making the right turn, so he should have watched for you to be there. You could very well have been a particularly slow pedestrian who started walking right on time. The fault was his.
s. 144 says how you should and shouldn't follow that specific signal, and the way you followed it explictly violates this section.
s. 140 gives pedestrians crossing a street right of way over traffic going either way on that street, and doesn't require the pedestrians to be crossing the street legally, explicitly giving you right of way.
s. 14 only says when a signal is legally or illegally installed. It doesn't say anything about how anyone should or shouldn't follow the signal. It also doesn't say anything that would give any statement from a city official any weight in the matter. In fact, it seems to mean next to nothing for civilians in normal circumstances.
Hehe... I definitely wasn't trying to prove a point. I clearly saw him at a full stop because of the group of pedestrians who had crossed a few seconds ahead of me. So I figured I could cross too since he had already stopped. I'm pretty sure he saw me too but was pissed off because I started crossing after the signal started flashing... so he cut me off.
Fair enough... to be clear it's the statement on the city website that I find wishy washy. I just find it misleading that the city would post that statement which suggests that I'm to make the decision to cross or not.
As for s.14, it says that a traffic control signal system (countdown timer in this case) can't be installed without approval. Since this was installed I can only assume it was approved by the proper authority. Since the system is now in place should I not follow the guidelines for that system? The Traffic Act says nothing of these types of system specifically so I searched my municipality's website for an answer and that's when I got the wishy washy statement.
With all that said... I shouldn't have crossed but that guy is still a silly goose.
And then you're dead.
Thank you for forcing me to post the blindingly obvious, "Just because you wouldn't be at fault doesn't mean you should step in front of that speeding car" addendum. You've done us all a great service.
On-topic: smile apologetically, wave, move on. If you don't ask for trouble you'll get far less of it.
That being said, Seattle, which has literally the most uptight pedestrians I've ever seen when it comes to crossing the street (only place in the world where you'll see people standing on a corner in the rain when there are no cars on the road waiting for the light to change), and everybody will still cross on a flashing "don't walk." Legally speaking, you were jaywalking, and he failed to yield right of way; functionally speaking, unless you have some seriously uptight people out there, the dude was a fucking retard, and based on general practices, you were almost certainly completely in the right.
That does not, however, protect you from being run over.
To be fair, "standing on a corner in the rain" to Seattleites is "standing on a corner" to everybody else.
I know... that's what I should have done. Hindsight is 20/20. Although this was the first time it's happened to me I've seen it happen so many times to others (who were actually crossing legally) at this same intersection that I just lost my cool.
I think you mean the other way around.
I think it can mean the same thing both ways, you just read it differently. But I admit yours is more clever.
Pedestrians always have the right of way (at least in most places in the US).
Flashing stop signs are different than countdown timers. Countdown timers have numbers counting down.
So you were in the wrong, but it doesn't matter.
@OP: BC adopts a similar line as other places, I should think. Here, it is technically not allowed for you to cross once the don't walk sign starts to flash. Yet it's also BC law that vehicles must always yield to pedestrians. A car hitting someone because they're "not supposed to be there" is no excuse. Not in this province anyway.
Ok, to all the people saying if the car hits the pedestrian, the driver is at a fault, are you sure about this? In Ontario at least, if you cross against the flashing hand (whether it has a countdown or not) youre jaywalking, same as if you crossed in the middle of a road. If you are hit by a car, the driver is not at fault. Sure, charges may be filed at the scene, or if the driver takes off he will get charged with a hit and run, but if he sticks around and waits it out any charges would be dropped because "he jumped in front of my car" is actually a perfectly valid excuse when youre happily driving along the road and you cream a jaywalking pedestrian who ran out between 2 parked cars 300ft from any marked crossing. Youd have a harder time proving that he ran out during the "DON'T CROSS" countdown at an intersection, but if you have a witness who could back you up or if the intersection is camera monitored, you would get off.
Any time you are jaywalking, you are no longer afforded your reasonable right to assume that you will not get smashed into a bloody pulp by a car. It might be different elsewhere, but according to what the OP posted, he was not supposed to be in the intersection at all, therefore the rest of the laws would not apply to his situation (assuming "entering the intersection contrary to a signal" is in subsection 2).
Check out my band, click the banner.
If he's going straight he's blowing through a red. As it stands he was stopped and elected to enter the intersection as someone was crossing (illegally).
If he ran out in the middle of the street as traffic was flowing it'd be a different story.
Yep, it's different from Ontario. I went to university in Ontario for a few years and there's a little bit of a contrast. The rule in BC - and I imagine it's largely the same in the US - is simply that the pedestrian always has the right of way. There are still laws governing pedestrian responsibilities in the BC Motor Vehicle Act, but it doesn't matter where a pedestrian is. You're in trouble regardless, with the only exception being circumstances where you can prove there could have been no way to a) predict that the pedestrian would be in your path and b) stop in time. If someone jumps out from between parked cars while wearing all black at night, I would expect charges would be dropped. But if you're driving during the day down West Broadway and you hit someone crossing the street at random while you play with the radio, you're going to jail, son.
Which is as it should be.
Contrasting sharply with Ontario, jaywalking is technically illegal in BC but I don't think it really gets charged much. I know at the local level, in Vancouver, it basically doesn't exist - as you'll notice for example along the stretch of West Broadway in Kits - because there are no crosswalks or traffic lights whatsoever. As a pedestrian you are expected to cross whenever you damn well please. Almost everyone including myself is polite enough to wait for a break in traffic. But that's how it works here. Backwards! I know.
In Europe, the further east you go, the more likely the excuse that, "He had plenty of time to leap out of the way of my car" is considered valid.
In this case, you were both at fault. You jaywalked, he didn't yield. He would face harsher penalties than you would. For future reference - if a dude is batshit insane enough to come after you in a parking lot while screaming obsenities, just immeadiately hold up a hand and say, "excuse me for a moment" and dial 911.
Make sure you're loud about it so he knows you've asked the police to come.
Chasing someone in your car just to scream at them means that he's at least angry and maybe crazy. Don't experiment or risk finding out just HOW angry and crazy he can be.
And guilty of causing an accident... I have yet to see a law that makes it the driver's fault if he runs over a jaywalker, at least in the us, where the car is king.
I just want to clear up a few things... I did not jump out into traffic so that's not the issue.
I started crossing a couple seconds after the "Don't Walk" sign started flashing and the timer started counting down. I made sure no traffic was coming and started to go. The driver who was waiting to make a right turn was at a FULL stop when I started crossing. When I was halfway across the 2 lane road he decided he was going to go and cut me off . As he was passing me he was looking straight at me and giving me a dirty look. There is no question that he saw me and had plenty of time to react. I also want to mention that I wasn't crossing alone. It was a group of people. I just happened to be leading the pack. Also people had crossed (legally) a few seconds ahead of me. Not that it makes a difference in my breaking of the law but just saying that I didn't just dart out in front of his truck.
Section 140 (1) that I quoted states that the pedestrian in the crossover has the right of way. It says nothing as to whether the pedestrian was there legally or not.
I admit I was jaywalking (barely) but I made the decision to cross because no traffic was turning at the time and I had deemed it safe to cross.
I've learned my lesson and will pay closer attention to the crossing signal in the future especially at this intersection (I've seen this happen to others before).
So you can lock this thread before it becomes a debate about traffic laws.
Thanks all.