4 ms·

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 an

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.
  - Talanes 4y ago
    But that's still not relevant, because pedestrians inherently have the right of way at intersections under California law.
  - amanaplanacanal 4y ago
    I think the parent’s point is that the pedestrian already has the right of way, but drivers are ignoring that.
  - Taniwha 4y ago
    yes but this is California, by law there is a crosswalk at EVERY uncontrolled intersection (ie those with no traffic lights) pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way
    - pwg 4y ago
      The page at the link that @onphonenow provided details numerous ways, written into California law, that a pedestrian may not always have the right of way.
      - runarberg 4y ago
        IANAL but I read this differently. The pedestrian has the right of way at any intersection unless indicated otherwise. However there are also restriction on when a pedestrian can cross. So in practice this means that a driver should always yield before a pedestrian, however failing to do so the pedestrian is not allowed to walk in front of the car. So technically both are in the wrong, but I would argue that in reality a pedestrian usually becomes frustrated when a line of cars don’t stop (even when they are supposed to). At this point multiple drivers have failed to abide by traffic law. Now the pedestrian ignores their end of the deal and crosses in front of cars, hoping they would stop. What I’m getting at is that a pedestrian most often wouldn’t illegally cross if drivers wouldn’t illegally cross first.
        TheCoelacanth 4y ago
xmprt 4y ago
Could you add some citations. > As to the driver always being at fault, obviously that is incorrect You may have to retake driver's ed because when a pedestrian is crossing an intersection, they have right of way. > In fact, the pedestrian may have to pay the driver in some cases Do you have any proof of this?
- onphonenow 4y ago
  PLEASE PLEASE do not give bad advice here, you may get folks killed. "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." That is the LAW. The issue is at some intersections particularly at night, a car coming around a bend at 40mph will almost always pose an immediate hazard particularly if you look at standardized reaction times and stopping distances. A city doing this properly, before painting a crosswalk, would look at doing things like reducing multi-lane travel, reducing speed, signalizing the intersection, doing bumpouts, increasing sightlines (red curb pain, tree and vegetation removal) and much more. Then once it is safe enough, they would paint a crosswalk to attract crossings to this safer crossing.

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.
- Talanes 4y ago
  But that's still not relevant, because pedestrians inherently have the right of way at intersections under California law.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  I think the parent’s point is that the pedestrian already has the right of way, but drivers are ignoring that.
- Taniwha 4y ago
  yes but this is California, by law there is a crosswalk at EVERY uncontrolled intersection (ie those with no traffic lights) pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way
  - pwg 4y ago
    The page at the link that @onphonenow provided details numerous ways, written into California law, that a pedestrian may not always have the right of way.
    - runarberg 4y ago
      IANAL but I read this differently. The pedestrian has the right of way at any intersection unless indicated otherwise. However there are also restriction on when a pedestrian can cross. So in practice this means that a driver should always yield before a pedestrian, however failing to do so the pedestrian is not allowed to walk in front of the car. So technically both are in the wrong, but I would argue that in reality a pedestrian usually becomes frustrated when a line of cars don’t stop (even when they are supposed to). At this point multiple drivers have failed to abide by traffic law. Now the pedestrian ignores their end of the deal and crosses in front of cars, hoping they would stop. What I’m getting at is that a pedestrian most often wouldn’t illegally cross if drivers wouldn’t illegally cross first.
      - TheCoelacanth 4y ago

xmprt 4y ago

Could you add some citations. > As to the driver always being at fault, obviously that is incorrect You may have to retake driver's ed because when a pedestrian is crossing an intersection, they have right of way. > In fact, the pedestrian may have to pay the driver in some cases Do you have any proof of this?

onphonenow 4y ago
PLEASE PLEASE do not give bad advice here, you may get folks killed. "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." That is the LAW. The issue is at some intersections particularly at night, a car coming around a bend at 40mph will almost always pose an immediate hazard particularly if you look at standardized reaction times and stopping distances. A city doing this properly, before painting a crosswalk, would look at doing things like reducing multi-lane travel, reducing speed, signalizing the intersection, doing bumpouts, increasing sightlines (red curb pain, tree and vegetation removal) and much more. Then once it is safe enough, they would paint a crosswalk to attract crossings to this safer crossing.