Waiting for pedestrians to cross entire road before proceeding?

[slowbird]

That has to be a mistake by the article's writer.

There was serious talk about including tow trucks in with the current "move-over" law that requires you to move over a lane or slow when approaching police stopped with their roof lights on. That's what I would bet this is all about, having to move-over for tow trucks stopped on the shoulder with amber beacons going.

There is no way that tow trucks with amber lights would ever gain the same benefits as the red or red/blue beacons enjoy, unless the law was to change to permit them to show red lights on top.

When I first read that article I thought, "Like hell I'm gonna pull over for a dirty tow truck!" but reading it over I think you're right. It's worded poorley. It's in regard to approaching tow trucks on the side of the road.

 

[Baggsy]

Few pedestrians realize know the jaywalking laws. Downtown will be a disaster. They cross when the light is green but "Don't Walk" is flashing. If they're rushing for a bus it's "Every man for himself".

In the city core they might as well say No turns as there is always someone crossing or approaching.

There are jaywalking laws?

 

[yeltoM]

Traffic lights aren't included

How can you be sure? The act doesn't say that, implicitly.

 

[slowbird]

On my way to work this Afternoon I was waiting to make a left turn at a light.
Pedestrian started to approach the intersection.
The crosswalk hand started to flash the no crossing hand. The pedestrian saw it...hesitated. Looked at my car with the signal on....back at the flashing hand. decides to cross anyways.
Takes 2 steps into the intersection and the crosswalk hand goes solid...traffic lights cycle amber. When I get the green light the pedestrian is basically right infront of my car.

So I have to wait for this numpty to walk past my lane...and the lane next to me...and onto the sidewalk? (assuming they don't start walking diagonal to the curb)

That's ridiculous.

 

[caboose56]

Why not move over or slow down for ALL cars stopped on the shoulder?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[griff2]

Why not move over or slow down for ALL cars stopped on the shoulder?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are suggesting that people actually make a concerted effort to practice defensive driving or riding? Silly you.

 

[Bagman]

Not sure if this has been covered, but in the OP's OP, he quotes that at Pedestrian Crossovers and School Crossings drivers must wait for pedestrians to cross the full crossing. This actually is a good thing to start doing. The image in the original post is of a crossover.

Crosswalks are located at intersections - ergo NOT the same, so the change they mention is not applicable here.
I can't think of any pedestrian crossover plopped in the middle of a busy, multi-lane (like 3+ each way) highway like Hurontario, or HWY7. That would actually be stupid and dangerous.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Not sure if this has been covered, but in the OP's OP, he quotes that at Pedestrian Crossovers and School Crossings drivers must wait for pedestrians to cross the full crossing. This actually is a good thing to start doing. The image in the original post is of a crossover.

Crosswalks are located at intersections - ergo NOT the same, so the change they mention is not applicable here.
I can't think of any pedestrian crossover plopped in the middle of a busy, multi-lane (like 3+ each way) highway like Hurontario, or HWY7. That would actually be stupid and dangerous.

Sorry, but this is untrue unless they add specific definitions for this new law. As it replaces existing law within the greater HTA, rather than being a separate section of the POA, this is unlikely. This is the definition from the HTA:

“pedestrian crossover” means any portion of a roadway, designated by by-law of a municipality, at an intersection or elsewhere, distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs on the highway and lines or other markings on the surface of the roadway as prescribed by the regulations; (“passage pour piétons”)

 

[Bagman]

I stand corrected. Dug out my 2014 HTA, and indeed it appears a "Crosswalk" (provincial) includes a "Pedestrian Crossover" (municipal). However, I'd be curious to actually see if the OP's original quote from the KW Record is missing important information to clarify, or if the KW Record misunderstood or misquoted themselves.

Again, I don't think a court would convict on a charge for a driver not waiting for a pedestrian to cross the entire width of a road - especially one 3+ lanes wide in each direction. And again, I don't think you'll find a pedestrian crossing anywhere where the roadway is that wide either. HTA 140(5) even states they won't exist (in so many words) on roads that are 60+ kph.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I stand corrected. Dug out my 2014 HTA, and indeed it appears a "Crosswalk" (provincial) includes a "Pedestrian Crossover" (municipal). However, I'd be curious to actually see if the OP's original quote from the KW Record is missing important information to clarify, or if the KW Record misunderstood or misquoted themselves.

Again, I don't think a court would convict on a charge for a driver not waiting for a pedestrian to cross the entire width of a road - especially one 3+ lanes wide in each direction. And again, I don't think you'll find a pedestrian crossing anywhere where the roadway is that wide either. HTA 140(5) even states they won't exist (in so many words) on roads that are 60+ kph.

I don't like taking media at face value, if the source is available:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet=&BillID=3057

39. (1) Subsections 140 (1) and (2) of the Act are repealed and the following substituted: Pedestrian crossover

Duties of driver

(1) When a pedestrian is crossing on the roadway within a pedestrian crossover, the driver of a vehicle approaching the crossover,
(a) shall stop before entering the crossover;
(b) shall not overtake another vehicle already stopped at the crossover; and
(c) shall not proceed into the crossover until the pedestrian is no longer on the roadway.

 

[Bagman]

Let's keep beating this dead horse. Hehehe.

Neat website! It limits the repeal to pedestrian crossovers. So I guess we're still down to figuring out where you can find a pedestrian crossover (defined by HTA Section 1) as designated by municipal by-law. The way I interpret the definitions is as follows: a Crosswalk includes Pedestrian Crossovers, but a Pedestrian Crossover is not a Crosswalk. LOL.

So, I bet you'll not find a Pedestrian Crossover (defined by mun. by-law) at an intersection. lol. Even reviewing the duties of a driver as you linked from the repeal of 140(1) & (2) paint the picture of a Ped. Crossover somewhere along a roadway, and not at an intersection.

Bottom line - in reality I can't see any cop getting someone over this. Good enough if the person is past the 1/2-way point. Also, cops have so much other stuff to know and worry about knowing than minor amendments like this one. lol.

 

[Scuba Steve]

Let's keep beating this dead horse. Hehehe.

Neat website! It limits the repeal to pedestrian crossovers. So I guess we're still down to figuring out where you can find a pedestrian crossover (defined by HTA Section 1) as designated by municipal by-law. The way I interpret the definitions is as follows: a Crosswalk includes Pedestrian Crossovers, but a Pedestrian Crossover is not a Crosswalk. LOL.

So, I bet you'll not find a Pedestrian Crossover (defined by mun. by-law) at an intersection. lol. Even reviewing the duties of a driver as you linked from the repeal of 140(1) & (2) paint the picture of a Ped. Crossover somewhere along a roadway, and not at an intersection.

Bottom line - in reality I can't see any cop getting someone over this. Good enough if the person is past the 1/2-way point. Also, cops have so much other stuff to know and worry about knowing than minor amendments like this one. lol.

They have been ticketing for this at intersections in Guelph for a while and it covers all cross walks. Doesn't matter if it is at an intersection or in the middle of a block if the Ped is on the road not the sidewalk you can get a ticket.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Let's keep beating this dead horse. Hehehe.

Neat website! It limits the repeal to pedestrian crossovers. So I guess we're still down to figuring out where you can find a pedestrian crossover (defined by HTA Section 1) as designated by municipal by-law. The way I interpret the definitions is as follows: a Crosswalk includes Pedestrian Crossovers, but a Pedestrian Crossover is not a Crosswalk. LOL.

So, I bet you'll not find a Pedestrian Crossover (defined by mun. by-law) at an intersection. lol. Even reviewing the duties of a driver as you linked from the repeal of 140(1) & (2) paint the picture of a Ped. Crossover somewhere along a roadway, and not at an intersection.

Bottom line - in reality I can't see any cop getting someone over this. Good enough if the person is past the 1/2-way point. Also, cops have so much other stuff to know and worry about knowing than minor amendments like this one. lol.

As I said, it modifies the applicable sections of the HTA. The HTA defines a pedestrian crossover as I previously posted (ALL included). You'll see there are no modifications to the definitions listed.

I'm not a fan of legislation, that's never going to be enforced. Why bother making it? The issue comes up when they have "blitzes." Suddenly things that are not enforced, are, for a very short period of time. This in no way modifies behaviour and only serves to fill coffers.

 

[Bagman]

They have been ticketing for this at intersections in Guelph for a while and it covers all cross walks. Doesn't matter if it is at an intersection or in the middle of a block if the Ped is on the road not the sidewalk you can get a ticket.

I'm going to look into this further to confirm for myself my understanding of the definition, because based on the repeal's wording of what a driver shall do, and the existing definition I don't believe it applies to intersections. Again, giving the ticket is different than the courts convicting by their interpretation of the law. It's also Guelph. It's a smaller city where police have the time to dedicate towards it. In Toronto, pretty much the only way you'll get a cop to give out that ticket is if they are directed to do so for all or part of their shift.. or something pretty egregious happens right in front of them

 

[Bagman]

The issue comes up when they have "blitzes." Suddenly things that are not enforced, are, for a very short period of time. This in no way modifies behaviour and only serves to fill coffers.

Filling the coffers is certainly a bonus by-product of the real reason to the legislated repeal and associated "Blitz" - It's all politics and winning elections. Indeed pedestrians keep gettin' hit so this change (along with a blitz) makes it look like the politicians are doing something. Vehicular traffic is already governed by the HTA, so it's easier do change that than try to legislate pedestrians.

Perhaps there needs to be a STA - Sidewalk Traffic Act. hehe.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Filling the coffers is certainly a bonus by-product of the real reason to the legislated repeal and associated "Blitz" - It's all politics and winning elections. Indeed pedestrians keep gettin' hit so this change (along with a blitz) makes it look like the politicians are doing something. Vehicular traffic is already governed by the HTA, so it's easier do change that than try to legislate pedestrians.

Perhaps there needs to be a STA - Sidewalk Traffic Act. hehe.

When pedestrians are interacting with the roadway, they are also governed by the HTA. Take a look a little further down the same section

 

[Bagman]

When pedestrians are interacting with the roadway, they are also governed by the HTA. Take a look a little further down the same section

You mean S.140(4): "Duty of Pedestrian..."?? You're right, but it doesn't address the root problem. This is what needs to really be repealed!! Something along the lines of prohibiting the use of cell-phones and any portable entertainment device. LOL - sound familiar?

Had to fine HTA S.214(1) & (2) that define the General Penalty and penalty for Pedestrian Offences for anything under Part X of the HTA (Rules of The Road).

 

[Rob MacLennan]

You mean S.140(4): "Duty of Pedestrian..."?? You're right, but it doesn't address the root problem. This is what needs to really be repealed!! Something along the lines of prohibiting the use of cell-phones and any portable entertainment device. LOL - sound familiar?

Had to fine HTA S.214(1) & (2) that define the General Penalty and penalty for Pedestrian Offences for anything under Part X of the HTA (Rules of The Road).

If they're crossing when they are supposed to, then I don't care if they have their heads buried in a horse's feed bag. The 'root problem' is that they don't cross when they're supposed to.

 

[Bagman]

Indeed. Sometimes they don't! However, HTA 140(4) says they shall not cross when it is impracticable for a motor vehicle to stop - yielding the right of way to the pedestrian. Since a pedestrian has the right of way.. at some point they'll have to step out into traffic and making vehicles stop. I can very easily see how a pedestrian can readily argue that they can't exactly gauge what distance/speed is practicable for a vehicle to stop. They may have no driving experience. They are also not trained observers. They simply "do the best they can." - so they will say in court.

Charging is one thing.

Arguing in court, giving evidence of the offence and convicting is another! I'd say a cop would have to see a car slam on his brakes to get a conviction. Also, if the pedestrian is hit, it's the driver's fault typically failing to yield right of way.. but why not charge the pedestrian then under HTA 140(4).

Anyhoo. Very interesting.. Now I'm off to work.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

Indeed. Sometimes they don't! However, HTA 140(4) says they shall not cross when it is impracticable for a motor vehicle to stop - yielding the right of way to the pedestrian. Since a pedestrian has the right of way.. at some point they'll have to step out into traffic and making vehicles stop. I can very easily see how a pedestrian can readily argue that they can't exactly gauge what distance/speed is practicable for a vehicle to stop. They may have no driving experience. They are also not trained observers. They simply "do the best they can." - so they will say in court.

Charging is one thing.

Arguing in court, giving evidence of the offence and convicting is another! I'd say a cop would have to see a car slam on his brakes to get a conviction. Also, if the pedestrian is hit, it's the driver's fault typically failing to yield right of way.. but why not charge the pedestrian then under HTA 140(4).

Anyhoo. Very interesting.. Now I'm off to work.

I'm talking more about the idiocy of being unable to obey traffic lights, than anything else. Crossing on the countdown or flashing orange hand. Crossing 30 feet down from a red light and thinking that it doesn't apply to them. Crossing in the middle of a block.

Pedestrian crossing

(22) Where portions of a roadway are marked for pedestrian use, no pedestrian shall cross the roadway except within a portion so marked. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (22).

Typically if the pedestrian should have been charged under 140(4), I think the cop figures being hit by the car was punishment enough.