5 ms·

Interesting. Can folks killed by these efforts sue the Crosswalk Collective? I think if you are going to do things like this you probably should also take the

Interesting. Can folks killed by these efforts sue the Crosswalk Collective? I think if you are going to do things like this you probably should also take the liability costs as well.

neves 4y ago
How could someone be killed by extra crosswalks?
- onphonenow 4y ago
  Very easily. Crosswalks are designed to create reasonable expectations where peds can cross a roadway safely. They are designed to channelize ped crossings to specific areas which are safer to cross - so for example with good sightlines, with appropriate stop markers with good speeds (slower). Crosswalks are often combined with other traffic calming measures (stop signs, stop lines at the right distance, road narrowing features, tree clearing etc). For example, they are recommending adding these at "dangerous" intersections. So for example, a crossing that occurs just after a bend (we have one near my house). This is pretty horrifying, because by encouraging peds to cross where there is a bend blocking sightlines, those peds are at MUCH greater risk of injury or death. Similarly, speeds over 40mph, you wouldn't generally do a a painted x-walk. Similarly multilane without appropriate controls. For example, they have a crosswalk painted 6 inches from a stop line. In a road with 2 lanes of traffic, you can't have have stopline that close or no stopline, because the car in lane 2 or 1 does not have enough of a sightline to see that a pedestrian is crossing and so the risks go way up if you attract pedestrians to cross in that situation (a car will generally be shielding the view when they stop that close). The list goes on. In short, by painting crosswalks at "dangerous" intersections (high speeds, poor sightlines, etc) you attract pedestrian crossings there. This will get folks killed. If a city did this, they might be sued for violating guidelines on crosswalk placement. What they normally would do is evaluate a bunch of things, then do OTHER things to increase safety at the crossing (lots of things), THEN paint the crosswalk. Why do these guys get a free pass to kill people for an ego trip?
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    Given that all intersections are crosswalks by default in CA, if the intersection is dangerous to cross at, then maybe there should be a "no crossing sign" rather than just an absence of a painted crosswalk?
    - onphonenow 4y ago
      The rules at a dangerous (and all) intersections are basically due care by the pedestrian. "No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk ... into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard." The problem with dangerous intersections (think 40 mph or multi-lane, or with a bend in road) is that it may be difficult to cross (think at night etc) is that many vehicles will pose an immediate hazard as they come around the bend or at speed when you looking at standardized stopping distances and reaction times. We have a crossing near me that is around a modest bend where folks are moving at speed. There is almost no time to stop even if paying attention. To paint a crossing here at an unsignalized intersection that would attract folks to cross would be criminal in my view.
      - aidenn0 4y ago
        I get your point, but if there is a 40mph road with a bend right before a crosswalk, I don't think it's particularly material whether there is paint on the crosswalk or not.
        onphonenow 4y ago
        It is, because if the crosswalk collective idiots paint a crosswalk there, pedestrians will be more likely to choose this terrible crossing and be killed. That's the point their ego's seem totally unable to grasp in all this. That's literally part of how this design works. They've painted a crosswalk in the straight before the bend, and the straight after at a stop sign (goal is every 300 feet minimum to have a high quality crossing) to draw folks away from this dangerous crossing. Rule of thumb is 40mph traffic requires 400 feet sightlines to stop and if you have a multilane crossing more
brewdad 4y ago
That's the beauty of this project. By law, every intersection in California is a crosswalk regardless of whether or not there is any paint. This new paint stands as a reminder to drivers but the driver would be at fault even if there were no markings on the road.
- onphonenow 4y ago
  As long as they can sued and bankrupted for the fatalities they cause by doing this I'm fine with that. However, if they want to start messing with roadways and won't accept responsibility I'm not. As to the driver always being at fault, obviously that is incorrect and often particularly so in what are considered "dangerous" intersections. In fact, the pedestrian may have to pay the driver in some cases even if they are the ones seriously injured and the driver was not.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    > As to the driver always being at fault, obviously that is incorrect and often particularly so in what are considered "dangerous" intersections. In fact, the pedestrian may have to pay the driver in some cases even if they are the ones seriously injured and the driver was not. Do you have examples of pedestrians crossing at a crosswalk (which these intersections already are; just not painted ones), and not against the signal, getting successfully sued by a driver that hits them?
    - onphonenow 4y ago
      Maybe take a look here: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/do-pedestrians-always-have-the-right-of-way/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/do-pedestrians-always-have... In general because a driver is so unlikely to be hurt, I can't imagine them suing? But these lawyers say this: "If the pedestrian did not have the right of way and got hit by a car, the pedestrian may be responsible for the accident. With that responsibility comes liability. If the pedestrian is liable, he or she may have to compensate the driver for the costs of the crash, even if the pedestrian was more severely hurt." I didn't pull caselaw here, because the issue here is that liability WOULD be very easy to show against the crosswalk collective attracting ped crossings to dangerous intersections. That is my (very unpopular) point. I would hope someone would sue them if they had a relative killed though or particularly a child. Editing to add: The "right of way" is not automatic, pedestrians have a duty of care still. I think folks are getting confused between pedestrians can cross at all intersections (true, it is not jaywalking even if no crosswalk) and things like a driver is always at fault etc. i. Pedestrians must use reasonable care at all times. Pedestrians are required by statute to obey traffic signs and signals. Further, every pedestrian has the duty, before entering a street, to make reasonably careful observations to ascertain traffic conditions to be encountered; thus, a pedestrian has a duty to look in the direction from which an approaching motorist might endanger the pedestrian’s safety, to exercise reasonable care at all times while crossing the street and to continue to be alert to safeguard against injury. ii. Pedestrians cannot walk in front of a motor vehicle. Under the law, a pedestrian who is aware of the approach of a vehicle should not begin or continue crossing a street in such proximity to the crossing or traveling at such speed as to constitute an imminent peril. A driver has the right to assume that a pedestrian will not leave a place of safety to step directly in front of the driver’s vehicle.
lalopalota 4y ago
If a pedestrian + vehicle collision occurs, the fault is with either the pedestrian or the driver of the vehicle. People wont be killed by paint on the road (unless they slip on it while wet, maybe?).

Interesting. Can folks killed by these efforts sue the Crosswalk Collective? I think if you are going to do things like this you probably should also take the liability costs as well.

neves 4y ago

How could someone be killed by extra crosswalks?

onphonenow 4y ago
Very easily. Crosswalks are designed to create reasonable expectations where peds can cross a roadway safely. They are designed to channelize ped crossings to specific areas which are safer to cross - so for example with good sightlines, with appropriate stop markers with good speeds (slower). Crosswalks are often combined with other traffic calming measures (stop signs, stop lines at the right distance, road narrowing features, tree clearing etc). For example, they are recommending adding these at "dangerous" intersections. So for example, a crossing that occurs just after a bend (we have one near my house). This is pretty horrifying, because by encouraging peds to cross where there is a bend blocking sightlines, those peds are at MUCH greater risk of injury or death. Similarly, speeds over 40mph, you wouldn't generally do a a painted x-walk. Similarly multilane without appropriate controls. For example, they have a crosswalk painted 6 inches from a stop line. In a road with 2 lanes of traffic, you can't have have stopline that close or no stopline, because the car in lane 2 or 1 does not have enough of a sightline to see that a pedestrian is crossing and so the risks go way up if you attract pedestrians to cross in that situation (a car will generally be shielding the view when they stop that close). The list goes on. In short, by painting crosswalks at "dangerous" intersections (high speeds, poor sightlines, etc) you attract pedestrian crossings there. This will get folks killed. If a city did this, they might be sued for violating guidelines on crosswalk placement. What they normally would do is evaluate a bunch of things, then do OTHER things to increase safety at the crossing (lots of things), THEN paint the crosswalk. Why do these guys get a free pass to kill people for an ego trip?
- aidenn0 4y ago
  Given that all intersections are crosswalks by default in CA, if the intersection is dangerous to cross at, then maybe there should be a "no crossing sign" rather than just an absence of a painted crosswalk?
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    The rules at a dangerous (and all) intersections are basically due care by the pedestrian. "No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk ... into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard." The problem with dangerous intersections (think 40 mph or multi-lane, or with a bend in road) is that it may be difficult to cross (think at night etc) is that many vehicles will pose an immediate hazard as they come around the bend or at speed when you looking at standardized stopping distances and reaction times. We have a crossing near me that is around a modest bend where folks are moving at speed. There is almost no time to stop even if paying attention. To paint a crossing here at an unsignalized intersection that would attract folks to cross would be criminal in my view.
    - aidenn0 4y ago
      I get your point, but if there is a 40mph road with a bend right before a crosswalk, I don't think it's particularly material whether there is paint on the crosswalk or not.
      - onphonenow 4y ago
        It is, because if the crosswalk collective idiots paint a crosswalk there, pedestrians will be more likely to choose this terrible crossing and be killed. That's the point their ego's seem totally unable to grasp in all this. That's literally part of how this design works. They've painted a crosswalk in the straight before the bend, and the straight after at a stop sign (goal is every 300 feet minimum to have a high quality crossing) to draw folks away from this dangerous crossing. Rule of thumb is 40mph traffic requires 400 feet sightlines to stop and if you have a multilane crossing more

brewdad 4y ago

That's the beauty of this project. By law, every intersection in California is a crosswalk regardless of whether or not there is any paint. This new paint stands as a reminder to drivers but the driver would be at fault even if there were no markings on the road.

onphonenow 4y ago
As long as they can sued and bankrupted for the fatalities they cause by doing this I'm fine with that. However, if they want to start messing with roadways and won't accept responsibility I'm not. As to the driver always being at fault, obviously that is incorrect and often particularly so in what are considered "dangerous" intersections. In fact, the pedestrian may have to pay the driver in some cases even if they are the ones seriously injured and the driver was not.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  > As to the driver always being at fault, obviously that is incorrect and often particularly so in what are considered "dangerous" intersections. In fact, the pedestrian may have to pay the driver in some cases even if they are the ones seriously injured and the driver was not. Do you have examples of pedestrians crossing at a crosswalk (which these intersections already are; just not painted ones), and not against the signal, getting successfully sued by a driver that hits them?
  - onphonenow 4y ago
    Maybe take a look here: https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/do-pedestrians-always-have-the-right-of-way/ https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/do-pedestrians-always-have... In general because a driver is so unlikely to be hurt, I can't imagine them suing? But these lawyers say this: "If the pedestrian did not have the right of way and got hit by a car, the pedestrian may be responsible for the accident. With that responsibility comes liability. If the pedestrian is liable, he or she may have to compensate the driver for the costs of the crash, even if the pedestrian was more severely hurt." I didn't pull caselaw here, because the issue here is that liability WOULD be very easy to show against the crosswalk collective attracting ped crossings to dangerous intersections. That is my (very unpopular) point. I would hope someone would sue them if they had a relative killed though or particularly a child. Editing to add: The "right of way" is not automatic, pedestrians have a duty of care still. I think folks are getting confused between pedestrians can cross at all intersections (true, it is not jaywalking even if no crosswalk) and things like a driver is always at fault etc. i. Pedestrians must use reasonable care at all times. Pedestrians are required by statute to obey traffic signs and signals. Further, every pedestrian has the duty, before entering a street, to make reasonably careful observations to ascertain traffic conditions to be encountered; thus, a pedestrian has a duty to look in the direction from which an approaching motorist might endanger the pedestrian’s safety, to exercise reasonable care at all times while crossing the street and to continue to be alert to safeguard against injury. ii. Pedestrians cannot walk in front of a motor vehicle. Under the law, a pedestrian who is aware of the approach of a vehicle should not begin or continue crossing a street in such proximity to the crossing or traveling at such speed as to constitute an imminent peril. A driver has the right to assume that a pedestrian will not leave a place of safety to step directly in front of the driver’s vehicle.

lalopalota 4y ago

If a pedestrian + vehicle collision occurs, the fault is with either the pedestrian or the driver of the vehicle. People wont be killed by paint on the road (unless they slip on it while wet, maybe?).