To cross, or not to cross. (San Francisco, Glendale: subdivisions, living in, safety)

[CALGUY]

I moved to California in the winter of 1970.
One thing that impressed me was, if you took one foot of the curb to enter a cross walk, traffic stop in all directions until you reached the opposite curb.
Last night, I dammed near got run over in a crosswalk.
The driver was making a left turn from a heavily traveled street.
I had the walk signal and proceeded across the cross walk.
Half way through, the car turning left did not stop for me, and missed hitting me by less than an inch.
I yelled at the bastard, and he, or she never slowed down.
I sure wish there had been a cop around.
One really takes their life in hand when crossing at a cross walk.
Bob.

[geoff5093]

You know what they say, look before you cross.

[Samoi137]

Things may well have gotten worse as people feel they are in a rush and can't spare a second to wait for a pedestrian. Other cities I've been to, including San Francisco, Washington and Rio, have always been worse in terms of pedestrian safety. I moved to Washington, DC for my job and nearly got killed the first time I stepped off a curb, assuming cars would stop. When I was working in Rio and my mother, living in L.A., came to visit, I had to keep reminding here that cars would NOT stop for pedestrians. Assume that's the case wherever you are.

[Patrolman]

In 38 years of police work, I've seen my share of dumb drivers and equally dumb pedestrians. The lesson to be learned is that whether driving or walking, you have to do so defensively and always be aware.

[JTGJR]

It's interesting to me that so few people really understand the right of way law:

CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE 21950 STATES THAT:
(a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.


(b) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.



(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.


(d) Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any unmarked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

Notice these subdivisions do not necessarily require a motorist to wait for a crossing-walking pedestrian to completely leave the crosswalk and step onto the curb before a driver may lawfully pass. Instead, the statute requires only that a driver yield the right-of-way to pedestrians [subsection (a)], and to exercise "all due care," [Subsection {c}. Vehicle Code 525 defines right-of-way as "the privilege of the immediate use of the highway.

My rules of thumb:

1. When making a left hand turn, wait for the ped to clear the crosswalk.
2. When making a right hand turn, wait until the ped is at least 2 lanes past my turning lane.

What truly bothers me are pedestrians who hang ten off the curb waiting for the light to change and, even worse, idiot parents who have a baby stroller hanging 10 off the curb.

[1200RT]

If what the OP says is accurate, he is actually in the wrong.

The driver was making a left turn from a heavily traveled street.
I had the walk signal and proceeded across the cross walk.

If the car was already turning left, the ped has the responsibility to yield to the vehicle, not the other way around. If, while already engaged in a left turn, the vehicle was forced to stop (and yield to the ped), this would constitute an "immediate hazard" to the turning vehicle - leaving him exposed to oncoming traffic. We can speculate about what-ifs all day long, but there needs to be a fine balance between vehicles and pedestrians. Too many times peds feel they ALWAYS have the right of way, when such right of way actually puts the entire intersection into danger.

Now, if the OP had already started his cross, and then the car initiated his left turn, we have another discussion.

[Patrolman]

1200RT, the way Bob described his near-hit incident, he had the right of way. The driver turning left appears to have placed all his/her attention on the oncoming traffic and failed to see the pedestrian. If that's the way it had gone down and I witnessed it, the driver would have been cited for failure to yield.

I also agree with Bob that crossing the street nowadays is really putting your life in jeopardy if you are not paying attention. For instance, Glendale has a dismal track record regarding the high number of pedestrian injuries/fatalities and that's in a city with a top-notch police department and a no-nonsense attitude regarding traffic enforcement. You can only do so much when budgetary restraints limit the number of officers assigned to the traffic bureau.

[CALGUY]

Originally Posted by 1200RT

If what the OP says is accurate, he is actually in the wrong.

The driver was making a left turn from a heavily traveled street.
I had the walk signal and proceeded across the cross walk.

If the car was already turning left, the ped has the responsibility to yield to the vehicle, not the other way around. If, while already engaged in a left turn, the vehicle was forced to stop (and yield to the ped), this would constitute an "immediate hazard" to the turning vehicle - leaving him exposed to oncoming traffic. We can speculate about what-ifs all day long, but there needs to be a fine balance between vehicles and pedestrians. Too many times peds feel they ALWAYS have the right of way, when such right of way actually puts the entire intersection into danger.

Now, if the OP had already started his cross, and then the car initiated his left turn, we have another discussion.

Your last sentence is EXACTLY how it was.
The walk signal was on,I was 2/3rds in the crosswalk, and this fool going at least 20mph made his left turn without any consideration to anyone in the crosswalk.
Bob.

[2Easy]

It depends on where you are. In the beach cities around the south bay, drivers tend to be courteous. In South LA, drivers often do not stop, even for kids. I saw two girls that appeared to be about 12yo crossing Avalon north of Century. None of the cars were stopping so they had to make a dash to finish crossing. Yesterday around the corner from me, I saw parents crossing with a toddler. They had the signal, but a pickup didn't want to wait and turned in front of them. Nothing happened and the parents didn't appear to care or notice, but it was a pretty stupid thing to do to save 6 seconds.

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by 1200RT

If what the OP says is accurate, he is actually in the wrong.

The driver was making a left turn from a heavily traveled street.
I had the walk signal and proceeded across the cross walk.

If the car was already turning left, the ped has the responsibility to yield to the vehicle, not the other way around. If, while already engaged in a left turn, the vehicle was forced to stop (and yield to the ped), this would constitute an "immediate hazard" to the turning vehicle - leaving him exposed to oncoming traffic. We can speculate about what-ifs all day long, but there needs to be a fine balance between vehicles and pedestrians. Too many times peds feel they ALWAYS have the right of way, when such right of way actually puts the entire intersection into danger.

Now, if the OP had already started his cross, and then the car initiated his left turn, we have another discussion.

You obviously misread something since he said that the car turned when he was halfway across, yet you somehow concluded that he was in the wrong.