Because they've been hit in the head by frustrated passengers so many times, they have no short term memory.
|
|
|
Pedestrian flashing red countdown = don't cross?
- Thread starter FiReSTaRT
- Start date
Because they've been hit in the head by frustrated passengers so many times, they have no short term memory.
conundrum
Well-known member
Pretty sure that is what it does mean, but now how it works in reality. As others have said, pedestrians will cross until the red, and if they are in the intersection, then you must yield to them of course (this isn't Grand Theft Auto nor Carmageddon). That said, if a cop saw you complete your turn when they are free and clear of your lane, the shouldn't light you up, as you can legally go and the new rules for cross-walks do not apply to intersections.
With that said, what bugs me is when I am walking, and as soon as my way goes green, some intersections have about 2-5 seconds before a 45 second or similar countdown starts. If following the letter of the law, it would mean pedestrians have 5 seconds to step into the intersection before they'd have to wait for the next light cycle. What I do, and what most pedestrians should do, is look at the countdown and if you know you can cross with time to spare, then go. If you are stepping out with 2 seconds left on the clock before the red...then you need your head examined for thinking you are actually some sort of special snowflake.
A countdown clock at an intersection is the same as the flashing hand; don't walk. If a pedestrian enters the intersection when the indicator is against them then the following section DOES NOT apply to them, as they did not "lawfully enter the roadway."
(28) Every pedestrian who lawfully enters a roadway in order to cross may continue the crossing as quickly as reasonably possible despite a change in the indication he or she is facing and, for purposes of the crossing, has the right of way over vehicles. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (28).
(28) Every pedestrian who lawfully enters a roadway in order to cross may continue the crossing as quickly as reasonably possible despite a change in the indication he or she is facing and, for purposes of the crossing, has the right of way over vehicles. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (28).
Toronto is a dangerous place to be a pedestrian: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...illed-by-vehicles-since-2011/article30391640/
I've had to leapfrog over a couple of different car fenders to avoid getting hit, back when I was still nimble enough to vault. Not so long ago, some lady who was busy texting ran a stop sign and missed me by inches. There have been a few drivers who have accelerated directly toward me on the crosswalk, staring straight as me as they did it. I have had so many close calls with drivers making right turns on red lights while people were trying to cross, or trying to sneak through as the light was changing. Homicidal pricks, all of them, selfish and reckless, with a dangerous attitude of entitlement.
I would love to see the police enforce crosswalk violations for a change. It is not safe for a pedestrian to cross the street in this city.
I've had to leapfrog over a couple of different car fenders to avoid getting hit, back when I was still nimble enough to vault. Not so long ago, some lady who was busy texting ran a stop sign and missed me by inches. There have been a few drivers who have accelerated directly toward me on the crosswalk, staring straight as me as they did it. I have had so many close calls with drivers making right turns on red lights while people were trying to cross, or trying to sneak through as the light was changing. Homicidal pricks, all of them, selfish and reckless, with a dangerous attitude of entitlement.
I would love to see the police enforce crosswalk violations for a change. It is not safe for a pedestrian to cross the street in this city.
I'd like to see them enforce the crosswalk thing for both drivers AND pedestrians. Life would be so much easier if people just followed the rules.
conundrum
Well-known member
Personally, if you could do away with the idiots (lol, like that is ever going to happen), is install 'scramble' intersections everywhere. Set things up so after the lights cycle, there is a 4-way red for 30-60 seconds where only pedestrians can cross, any which why they want (eg. straight, diagonal, etc). Then, once the roadway goes green for a direction, NO pedestrians can cross, period. This way, cars get a turn and people get a turn, and never the two should meet.
The first time I saw a similar set up in Toronto I was amazed at what a good idea it was...until I had a green, but still couldn't turn right due to the constant stream of pedestrians, straight into the red.
conundrum
Well-known member
Counterpoint though....how many pedestrians, especially in the downtown core, actually cross at an intersection vs jaywalking even if the intersection is less than 25 feet away? Not to mention, half the time they do it, they are setting out into an active lane without looking, or even looking up from their phones.
One prime example I mentioned a number of times before -- I was sitting at a red on Bloor St. heading east, waiting to turn left/north on to Bay (I think). Anyhow, about half way into the light, a guy on his cell phone walked part way into my bumper and almost tripped. Immediately he flipped me off and yelled telling me to watch where I was going and he had teh right away/I had a red. The joke was, I had been sitting there for over 30 seconds, and hadn't moved a millimetre.
Again, there are bad drivers (LOTS of them), but there are also bad pedestrians, and it takes two to tango. The whole fact there are even 'detracted walking' campaigns just sadden me...especially since I almost saw a student get hit a few years back, because she stopped mid way in a lane (with an approaching car), to answer a text message. The car even honked at her after emergency braking...and she just looked at it, told them "one minute!" and continued standing in the road on her phone.
statsman
Well-known member
The worst ones are along University Ave.
Unless you enter the crosswalk at the exact moment the light changes, you will never make it across because its so wide.
Even so, many times it has changed to the flashing hand and I have to wait on the centre strip for the next light.
Unless you enter the crosswalk at the exact moment the light changes, you will never make it across because its so wide.
Even so, many times it has changed to the flashing hand and I have to wait on the centre strip for the next light.
That one is designed that way. i.e. as a two stage crossing. I believe there's a button on the centre median. It also gets really iffy when cars run the east/west red lights.
They did enforce it the other day.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...ints-fingers-at-the-wrong-suspect-keenan.html
Chose the wrong day to try and make their point.
In any case, this question of right of way when the pedestrian is unlawfully in the crossing hasn't properly been answered. The law states the pedestrian has the right of way if they entered lawfully. The question however is does the car have the right of way if the pedestrian entered unlawfully. The law doesn't address that exact scenario. But the question is moot. If there's a pedestrian in the crossing, or anywhere for that matter, then safety takes precedence over right of way.
I've said it before, there is a hierarchy of real-life road rules (not strictly going by law) that everyone should be aware of to help reduce frustration and confusion. The rules apply equally to all road users.
1- Safety
2- Right of way (according to the law)
3- Whatever the hell suits you
4- All the other laws of the road
Any time a pedestrian is in the roadway illegally, then they don't have the right of way but in many situations that's irrelevant as the higher-order rule comes into effect regarding safety. If they're aware of other road users and being safe, you should exploit your right of way. If not, you should ensure their safety for them.
A Stebel Nautilus really has no place in any of these interactions.
You must have been at the Bay/Bloor scramble, because the other two don't allow turning at all. But the scramble at Bay and Bloor is set to be removed anyways (if it hasn't already) after the metrics showed it was less efficient with the scramble than without.
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2015/02/16/city-may-un-scramble-bay-bloor-intersection.html
Yes, safety should always take precedent, however the wording of the statute strongly implies that the pedestrian DOES NOT have right of way if they unlawfully entered the roadway.
statsman
Well-known member
The most important thing to remember about the right of way is this:
You don't have it unless someone else is giving it to you.
One problem is that the cities don't try to educate their citizens. In Toronto's case it's deliberate. A while back I came across the city's position on the issue, which is pretty self-explanatory..
So, the law says that it's illegal to cross once the countdown starts, but the city refuses to educate people because the commies running it would like to change the law. Too many years under libtarded comrades resulted in too many city employees waging the war on cars. Changing the law would make congestion even worse and I've been avoiding driving/riding to downtown for many years because of it.
http://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/68/101000049368.html
So, the law says that it's illegal to cross once the countdown starts, but the city refuses to educate people because the commies running it would like to change the law. Too many years under libtarded comrades resulted in too many city employees waging the war on cars. Changing the law would make congestion even worse and I've been avoiding driving/riding to downtown for many years because of it.
And yet they deny that there's a "war on the car" in this damned city. The changing of this law is not "slow", it's not going to happen. If it ever did you might as well throw up concrete barricades at every intersection, because drivers would have about as much chance of getting through.
Making a turn in downtown, at any time of day is bad enough as it is right now. I shudder to think what it would look like if our provincial government decided to go full libtard.
Since the advent of the automobile, they have been given priority over all other modes of transportation; walking, cycling, transit. Planners have since learned that this leads to very unhealthy neighbourhoods for several reasons. They've been designing urban areas to support the full complement of transportation modes for the past decade or two.
Some call this a war. Strange kind of war that plans for equitable access for 'the enemy'.
Except that it is in no way equitable, if passenger vehicles are effectively blocked from making turns. That is the result of failure to enforce the laws against pedestrians illegally crossing streets. If pedestrians followed the rules there would be a remarkable drop in downtown gridlock, which would also enhance pedestrian safety.
Drivers who were required to have a flagman walking in front of their car might take issue with your "since the advent" comment.
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|