I was the root cause of a minor auto accident

Pedestrians ARE traffic. Why should cars get priority?

Being a busy state highway, it should be controlled access, with a pedestrian overpass so there are no conflicts.

That's good to hear. Any anger I might feel while on vacation South of the border is tempered with a not-so-little voice in my head that says 'Wait. These people are armed.' Maybe that's only a stereotype, but I always make it home safely, even if I do get told I'm 'too polite'.

As for the OP, no way it's his fault. The driver who stopped did the right thing, and the driver who didn't was at fault for not paying attention.

 

Cars get priority because it is a road. Pedestrians get priority on the sidewalk. Crossing the road a pedestrian has the same rights as anyone or anything else crossing the road: get across without obstructing traffic. It's the same with a bicycle, car, truck, or anything else allowed to cross.

In a city it makes sense to have controlled crossings, just like cities also have traffic lights. For a village of less than 500 people it's a harder sell. In the case of a state road the village has no say. It's up to the state to make any changes or rules.

A pedestrian overpass would be nice, but no one is willing to pay for it. The State of Michigan is barely maintaining roads, let alone improving them. The village in question isn't about to spend that sort of money for the busy tourist season, which lasts for only six weeks every year.

Tom

 

Different pedestrian incident

This was at a restaurant in the Houston area meeting Dan Bryant (PC member)

A pedestrian walked from the restaurant and obviously was not paying attention to the traffic - a nurse had to slam on her brakes. Behind her was a guy and his wife in a F350 doolie. He got out of his truck and screamed so much abusive language at the nurse she was in tears - about the time I walked out of the restaurant. We seriously considered calling the police...don't know if it was too many beers of if the guy just has a boatload of issues. He cooled off slightly and left after the bravado he knew the sheriff, etc.

His wife is the one I feel sorriest for.

 

I should note that many Canadians don't stop here, but continue much farther south to regions where that stereotype rings considerably closer to reality. A few are even active participants in the active two-way pharmaceutical market that created the problem.

But being polite and tempering any anger is a good idea anyway. All the drivers on the road are armed with a weapon that in practice is deadlier than a gun -- the motor vehicle itself.

:thumb: Exactly right.

 

The green that flows South and the white that flows North? Those 'pharmaceuticals'? Judging by the news reports, the violence involved in the drug trade is worst in Mexico. And maybe it's only my perception, but I thought guns were part of the stereotypical 'frontier mentality' of freedom and independence long before the drug trade.

 

What does logic have to do with it? And why is holding up traffic more important than holding up pedestrians? A balance is the important thing.

In Maine, if you do what you recommend, you might well get a ticket. (If you're lucky; if you're unlucky you will live with the thought of having killed another human being for the rest of your life).

 

How long ago did you take that class... cause the law changed in Illinois...
Gov. Quinn signs HB 43, making Illinois streets safer for pedestrians — Metropolitan Planning Council

new law states not only making it a requirement for drivers in Illinois to stop, not just yield, to pedestrians at a crosswalk. (EVEN IF THE PEDESTRIAN IS CROSSING AGAINST THE LIGHT)! Ouch... Haven't you heard about the stings police have setup on this???

 

The answer to this question depends on the nature of the traffic. Let's start with the logical extremes, then move in from there. At the far ends we have limited access divided highways and pedestrian malls.

Limited access highways are all about moving automobile traffic as efficiently and safely as possible. As a result, pedestrians, bicycles, and low powered vehicles are prohibited.

Pedestrian malls, on the other hand, are intended to allow people to walk freely without danger from vehicles. Automobiles are prohibited.

Other crossing situations fall between these two extremes. Some will favor pedestrians, some will favor vehicular traffic. Some will have traffic controls, others require cooperation. The differences of opinion in this thread come from each of us applying logic to what we consider a "normal" crossing situation, when in fact normal varies all over the map. What works in an urban situation may be completely untenable on a state highway encumbered by mobs of clueless tourists.

Obviously there is a difference between right-of-way and safety. A jay walking pedestrian isn't a free target. We don't get to run over people just because they break the law, just as we don't get to smash into an illegally parked car. Safety trumps in all cases.

Tom

 

Thank you, Tom. That makes perfect sense, as you almost always do. I'm sorry if I let my emotions temporarily get the better of me.

 

I didn't notice. What you said made perfect sense too. It all comes down to cooperation, but cooperative behavior is becoming uncommon. Pedestrians have a hard time getting across busy roads, so they really do need to have the right of way. On the other hand, cars should be allowed to move efficiently. If people were smart and well behaved, pedestrians would wait for a natural break in the traffic, or until a small group were ready to cross. Then the traffic could stop and allow the group safe passage.

Unfortunately many people are very self centered, and with people like that, each one thinks they have an absolute right to not be inconvenienced in any way, which includes not having to wait to cross the road. This turns pedestrian crossing into a veritable shooting gallery of drifting and staggering targets. Tourists are particularly bad about this.

Traffic flow in my little village is a disaster. Only the tiny population makes it work at all. Our village comprises an Indian village and a white village that eventually incorporated into one modern village along a common boarder, which is an east-west street. The street plans of the two component villages feature different spacing for streets, so none of the north-south streets are contiguous through the village: all north-south traffic has to make several jogs passing through town.

One of the north-south roads is a two lane state highway. Through traffic on this highway makes 90 degree turns through three four-way intersections and one three way intersection without stopping. Heading north, a driver coming into the village turns right, left, right, and left; all without stopping, while facing yield signs at each intersection. The yield signs are there in case you want to turn across the flow of traffic. If you follow the serpentine path of the highway you don't have to yield. Traffic from other directions have stop signs, but there is no way for the through drivers to know this without local knowledge.

If this all sound confusing it is. Predictably, what happens is unfamiliar drivers baulk at the Yield signs and fail to claim the right of way. Drivers waiting at the stop signs are reluctant to pull out because they don't have the right of way. Grid lock ensues, and impatient pedestrians attempt to cross through the halted traffic, not realizing that traffic is actually moving in the other direction.

We don't have many accidents, but it is a very silly system. It would be better if the traffic signs were all stop signs, or maybe just said "Take Turns", but the state highway is controlled by the state and we have no say.

My approach to crossing in this mess as a pedestrian is to avoid eye contact. I stay away from the curb and never give any indication that I want to cross. This keeps well meaning drivers from buggering up the works by stopping. Once an opening presents itself I quickly cross, muttering to myself about the absurdity of the whole situation. Fortunately it is only bad during the six weeks or so of tourist season.

Tom

 

The balance point is always elusive, isn't it? While some drivers are cooperative, pedestrians who patiently stand and wait tend to stand a long time. In some places, they may as well order out for pizza. Very few drivers seem to be aware of all the rules of the road, let alone abide by them. And some pedestrians seem to have a death wish, so no group is entirely without fault. Still, where there are conflicts, it's usually a design flaw, not just a behavioural issue.

Without knowing all the details and the conflicts of jurisdiction, it sounds like traffic circles might be a possible solution. People generally don't like them at first, but once they figure out how they work and get used to the idea, they usually function quite well.