U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should there be a 3-ft law or similar for yielding to pedestrians?
Yes 8 42.11%
No 11 57.89%
Voters: 19. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-30-2014, 08:30 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,089 posts, read 16,117,190 times
Reputation: 12673

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by VA Yankee View Post
Your continued position comes across that the pedestrian is always right well I disagree. If a vehicle is traveling the speed limit of 35 and someone steps out in the road why should the driver be at fault? Depending on the distance and traffic there may not be adequate time/distance to safely stop or slamming the breaks may cause an accident; but the drivers at fault?

Rather than assuming excessive speed if a driver doesn't stop in time you should look at the actions of everyone involved.
Of course, but that goes against the cars are bad meme.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing | Problem Guides | Pedestrian Injuries & Fatalities

In studies in Florida, pedestrians were at fault in 80% of collisions, in the UK it was 90%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2014, 01:23 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,008,379 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Of course, but that goes against the cars are bad meme.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing | Problem Guides | Pedestrian Injuries & Fatalities

In studies in Florida, pedestrians were at fault in 80% of collisions, in the UK it was 90%.
The "cars are bad" meme only exists at the extremes of the debate, either because someone thinks cars are bad, or to use it as a quick way to quickly dismiss arguments that challenge the status quo.

Many of the factors your link list are design and system problems, but they are presented as the failure of the pedestrian.

They state, for example, that "midblock crossing is implicated in 55 percent of all fatal pedestrian-vehicle crashes. If convenient midblock crosswalks were available at popular crossing points, pedestrians could cross these areas that would otherwise be unsafe and illegal." This represents a failure of the system to accommodate the way people naturally navigate the built form of a neighborhood.

They also show some bias here: "This finding suggests that narrower roads could encourage unsafe pedestrian behavior. Wider roads, however, could promote higher vehicle speeds, resulting in a possible trade-off with regard to pedestrian safety." It is well established by now that wider roads are faster roads, and faster roads are more incident prone, but they say there is only a "possible trade-off with regard to pedestrian safety."

Or, here: "Specifically, jaywalking is often cited as a poor pedestrian behavior that leads to pedestrian injuries and fatalities." Jaywalking is an artificial construction from a bygone era designed to place the burden of due care on the pedestrian, off the shoulders of the driver. Incidents are particularly problematic in locations where drivers have become habituated to have dominance or trained by experience to expect to not see a pedestrian.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2014, 01:19 PM
 
9,522 posts, read 14,865,612 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
Or, here: "Specifically, jaywalking is often cited as a poor pedestrian behavior that leads to pedestrian injuries and fatalities." Jaywalking is an artificial construction from a bygone era designed to place the burden of due care on the pedestrian, off the shoulders of the driver. Incidents are particularly problematic in locations where drivers have become habituated to have dominance or trained by experience to expect to not see a pedestrian.
By taking that position you've essentially taken the "cars are bad" position. If the pedestrians have no responsibility and the drivers have all of it, of course everything's going to look like the drivers' fault.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2014, 01:31 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,058,839 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
By taking that position you've essentially taken the "cars are bad" position. If the pedestrians have no responsibility and the drivers have all of it, of course everything's going to look like the drivers' fault.
How is he saying pedestrians have no responsibility?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2014, 01:35 PM
 
9,522 posts, read 14,865,612 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
How is he saying pedestrians have no responsibility?
"Jaywalking is an artificial construction from a bygone era designed to place the burden of due care on the pedestrian, off the shoulders of the driver."

The implication is the burden should always be on the driver, no matter what the pedestrian behavior.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2014, 01:44 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,058,839 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
"Jaywalking is an artificial construction from a bygone era designed to place the burden of due care on the pedestrian, off the shoulders of the driver."

The implication is the burden should always be on the driver, no matter what the pedestrian behavior.
I'm not sure if I'm following the implication, that's why I asked how.

Prior to cars, there were no restrictions to pedestrians in the middle of the road. Jaywalking rules limit pedestrians from entering the road to certain spots and times. Obviously, if pedestrians walk wherever all over traffic couldn't flow at all at much of any speed. But forcing pedestrians to cross at only a few spots well out of the way with long waits, does put more burden on pedestrians. Ditto with not allowing pedestrians to cross a street without any traffic, since it makes walking slower than it already it is, while drivers can make up speed more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2014, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,086,507 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Of course, but that goes against the cars are bad meme.

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing | Problem Guides | Pedestrian Injuries & Fatalities

In studies in Florida, pedestrians were at fault in 80% of collisions,....

At least in Florida, in many of those instances there was simply no way for a pedestrian to cross at that location without being "at fault." Either that, or the nearest proper crossing is too far away (often a half mile away even in urban areas in Florida). Then there are malfunctioning signals and signals that don't give people enough time to cross, so the pedestrian may be considered "at fault" since drivers still have green. In other words, it reflects poor design and not necessarily any preference on the part of the pedestrian.

Indeed, the study notes that:
"Seventy-four percent of pedestrian-vehicle crashes occur where no traffic control exists."
If there is no crosswalk signal or crosswalk, how do you expect people to cross?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2014, 11:51 AM
 
410 posts, read 390,319 times
Reputation: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hurricaneMan1992 View Post
At least in Florida, in many of those instances there was simply no way for a pedestrian to cross at that location without being "at fault." Either that, or the nearest proper crossing is too far away (often a half mile away even in urban areas in Florida). Then there are malfunctioning signals and signals that don't give people enough time to cross, so the pedestrian may be considered "at fault" since drivers still have green. In other words, it reflects poor design and not necessarily any preference on the part of the pedestrian.

Indeed, the study notes that:
"Seventy-four percent of pedestrian-vehicle crashes occur where no traffic control exists."
If there is no crosswalk signal or crosswalk, how do you expect people to cross?
The flip side is many pedestrians ignore the rules even if the design is completely favorable to pedestrians. First Avenue only runs a 90 second cycle so the longest time a pedestrian has to wait to cross the street is about 45 seconds (yet you see two pedestrians in this picture crossing against the light). The blocks on First Avenue are spaced roughly 260 feet apart, so the farthest a pedestrian would be from a crosswalk is about 130 feet (yet you see a pedestrian in the background jaywalking mid-block).

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2014, 01:33 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,008,379 times
Reputation: 1349
Quote:
Originally Posted by nybbler View Post
"Jaywalking is an artificial construction from a bygone era designed to place the burden of due care on the pedestrian, off the shoulders of the driver."

The implication is the burden should always be on the driver, no matter what the pedestrian behavior.
That cannot be reasonably implied from the information I supplied.

I only suggested that the idea of jaywalking is a modern construction of the automobile industry. It is possible for a court to determine "fault" without putting the entire burden of due care on either the driver or the pedestrian.

A pedestrian should take due care to cross when and where it is safe to do so; likewise, a driver should take due care to drive in a manner in which an average person could reasonably expect to react to a situation. This isn't an all-or-nothing situation. This means the pedestrian shouldn't sprint out from between parked cars. This also means that a driver shouldn't drive faster than they are able to safely react to a pedestrian.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-05-2014, 08:13 PM
 
Location: Seattle, WA
2,975 posts, read 4,086,507 times
Reputation: 1208
Quote:
Originally Posted by impala096 View Post
The flip side is many pedestrians ignore the rules even if the design is completely favorable to pedestrians. First Avenue only runs a 90 second cycle so the longest time a pedestrian has to wait to cross the street is about 45 seconds (yet you see two pedestrians in this picture crossing against the light). The blocks on First Avenue are spaced roughly 260 feet apart, so the farthest a pedestrian would be from a crosswalk is about 130 feet (yet you see a pedestrian in the background jaywalking mid-block).
I completely agree with you on this, and I never cross behind the bus when there's a perfectly good crossing a hundred feet away, as it looks like one of them is doing. In this case, there is probably good reason for sticking with the regular 90-second cycle too. But it does look like traffic is one-way and traffic is stopped because people are crossing legally in the crosswalk, plus no right turn on red in NYC, so no harm done--at any rate it's far from the most reckless thing you'll see pedestrians do. At any busy intersection I can pull out my phone and start recording for 15 minutes, and I'll pick up at least a dozen technically illegal, but mostly harmless, things that drivers do to save a few seconds (and probably one or two near accidents too).

But one of my pet peeves is intersections that are not on a regular cycle that respond on demand when they detect cars but make pedestrians wait a full minute or more. Also, mid-block crossings that actually take longer to change than the intersection crossing ones...once the light changes and traffic is stopped at the intersection, people waiting at the midblock crossing get impatient real quick! both situations are common in FL and are examples of poor design--and that's assuming there even is a signaled crossing within a quarter mile of where you need to cross....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top