Last month I shared the story of a reader who admitted that he doesn’t always stop for people on foot waiting to cross the road in front of him. In that story I mentioned Oregon’s crosswalk law; but I mistakenly left out a key part of it. After hearing from several readers who were concerned about what I wrote, I want to clear up any confusion about the law. Here’s what I wrote:
Oregon law (ORS 811.028) clearly states that if you see a person waiting to cross an intersection at a corner, and you’re able to do so in time, you must stop and let them cross.
What I failed to mention is that you are only required to stop if the person has made some effort to demonstrate their desire to cross. My memory of recent legislation changes to the crosswalk laws was faulty and I regret the error. Thankfully, I’ve heard from Oregon Walk Executive Director Steph Routh and she has helped sort out my misunderstandings.
In my defense however, the law is anything but clear.
For years, Routh says, advocates tried to amend 811.028 before finally succeeding in 2011. Here’s why Routh says they wanted to change it:
“Before the Crosswalk Safety Bill passed in 2011, a person activated their right to cross by ‘crossing,’ which law enforcement agents correctly interpreted as putting one’s whole body into the street and moving forward (the pre-2011 legal language is also how some people describe “aggressive pedestrian” behavior; ironic that it was also the only sure-fire way to activate the right to cross). The statutory language for right to cross gave us the shivers, frankly: it was at best vague and at worst a dangerous tautology, a call to engage in a leap of faith with oncoming traffic.”
At first, advocates tried to fix the law by pushing for the “hand signal bill.” That change would have allowed someone to simply raise their hand from the safety of the curb in order to trigger cars to stop. Routh and other advocates tried twice for the hand signal provision (in 2007 and 2009), but it never passed. They did, however, succeed in amending the law in 2011. Here’s what they got added to the law:
“… a pedestrian is crossing the roadway in a crosswalk when any part or extension of the pedestrian, including but not limited to any part of the pedestrians body, wheelchair, cane, crutch or bicycle, moves onto the roadway in a crosswalk with the intent to proceed.”
So, as of 2011, you no longer have to be actively “crossing” to trigger your right to cross. You only need to “dip a toe” (or a bike wheel or a cane, etc…) says Routh. “It is not a revolutionary change, but it is definitely better.”
I hope this clears things up. I definitely learned something new. And, did you know you could trigger the crosswalk law by dipping your bike’s wheel into the road?
— For more background on Oregon crosswalk laws, I strongly recommend the definitive source: A Legal Guide for Persons on Foot by Ray Thomas. It’s available as a free PDF here (*note that it’s a 2008 version).
UPDATE: We’ve been seeking further clarification in the comments and on Twitter about a particular issue with this law. My question was this: If I’m on my bike on the sidewalk and want to cross at an unsignalized intersection, can I still get the same rights as someone walking? Oregon law defines a “pedestrian” only as a “person afoot”. But ORS 814.410 also has this key provision: “Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, a bicyclist on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk has the same rights and duties as a pedestrian on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk.”
I asked lawyer Ray Thomas about this. He said that yes, the law allows someone on a bicycle to have the same crossing rights as someone walking. You do not have to dismount to exercise your right to cross. You could even be doing a trackstand, as long as you dip your front wheel into the roadway.
Thanks for reading.
BikePortland has served this community with independent community journalism since 2005. We rely on subscriptions from readers like you to survive. Your financial support is vital in keeping this valuable resource alive and well.
Please subscribe today to strengthen and expand our work.
So, how does that affect me when I’m at a signalized intersection with a part of my wheel in the crosswalk just so I can put my foot down on the sidewalk height part of the ramp?
(btw.. I still wait for the signal to go into my favor)
At signalized intersections, you’re required to wait for the signal. The language Jonathan describes is for unsignalized crosswalks.
(IANAL, this is not legal advice, etc.)
Portland, where bumper sticker-laden Subarus with a clear right of way stubbornly usher me and my bike through 4-way stops while cars on Burnside zip by carelessly as I take my fourth timid step into the pedestrian crossing zone.
That said, I do appreciate the legal clarification. The first step to having these laws matter is to get Oregon drivers actually familiar with the laws of the road, rather than the local mythology of street etiquette.
Hey, I just saw that episode on the New Year’s Portlandia marathon! So true…
And I do so hate that. Because to the Subaru driver they think they are being courteous, but to any other car drivers who are waiting they see a cyclist who thinks he is entitled to ignore STOP signs.
As a bumper sticker Subaru driver, I swear that I will not yield my right of way for you or anyone. I will however, stop at a crosswalk (marked or otherwise).
Thanks, Chris 🙂
Nicely stated.
Well said natalie.
Unsigalized crosswalks are super sketch because they rarely operate under perfect conditions: 1) Proper intersection lighting, stopping sight distance, and cross walk area free of visual obstructions, 2) Person waiting at crosswalk knows the “step into the street” indicator and indicates intention to cross, 3) The very first driver to the intersection is alert, traveling at or below speed limit, and knows the indicator, 4) Driver stops for them without getting rear-ended.
Not really surprising we have so many pedestrian fatalities, especially on busy, multi-lane roadways.
Thanks for explaining the details of the law Jonathan!
People might also want to check out Pedal Power: a Legal Guide for Oregon Bicyclists which has a section on bicycles and crosswalks. There’s a link to the latest (2012) edition on our resources page:
http://btaoregon.org/resources/
Hey Will,
I scanned Ray’s book again and it doesn’t say anything about the main question I still have: Can someone on a bicycle trigger their right to cross the street at an unsignalized, marked/unmarked intersection if they are straddling their top tube (and therefore meeting the “afoot” definition of a “pedestrian” in the law)?
My understanding is that a bicycle operating at no more than normal walking speed has the same rights as a pedestrian in a crosswalk, so if they are going REALLY show, you have to give them the right of easy.
(of course, you have to be walking the bike in order to qualify as a “pedestrian”): some cyclist is going to get creamed at the crosswalk in front of the Rose Festival office on Naito Pkwy. I drive thru this every day, and I constantly see cyclists waiting there to cross while ON their bikes. It’s a CrossWALK, not a CrossRIDE. Get off the bike if you want cars to stop!
In Oregon, a bicycle may be counted as a pedestrian when acting as one (operating inside of a crosswalk and moving no faster than walking speed). Though that makes it rather ambiguous to cars. There is no law requiring a cyclist to dismount to use a crosswalk – but there are legal limitations.
Reference: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/814.410
All that said. I still get off my bike and cross on foot when crossing W Burnside at the North Park Blocks. I feel much more assertive with my pedestrian rights that way than I do mounted. Cars respect it better that way too.
“I still get off my bike and cross on foot when crossing W Burnside at the North Park Blocks.”
Smart, too, because you can jump out of the way a lot faster as a pedestrian than when mounted.
Ted Buehler
and if tons of cars go by and nobody is stopping I just stick my bike out into traffic suddenly to get their attention… better that it gets hit than me…
Right. But that’s for using a crosswalk. What about when trying to communicate the intent to cross? I don’t think the law is intended to allow someone straddling a bicycle to trigger the crosswalk law. I am nearly positive the law (and the cops/courts) would say you are not a “pedestrian” until you are walking your bike. But again, this is all very confusing!
The law is pretty clear: it says “Except as otherwise specifically provided by law, a bicyclist on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk has the same rights and duties as a pedestrian on a sidewalk or in a crosswalk.”
But that doesn’t mean that it’s pragmatic to exercise it.
OK. thanks John. I think I’m clear now. It’s all about being on the sidewalk. When you’re on the sidewalk or in a crosswalk, you can get the same rights as someone walking when you are still on your bike. However, if you are simply trying to cross a road on your bike while in the main roadway, it’s different and you are a vehicle, not a “pedestrian.”
on the phone w/ Ray Thomas now to get final clarity.
As I recall from the Ray Thomas session I attended, the issue with cyclists isn’t whether you are walking or straddling, but speed. If on a bike in a crosswalk, you can only go as fast as walking speed — though joggers and skateboarders, for example, can continue at their regular speed.
daisy,
i wasn’t confused about the crosswalk speed stuff. I get that. You’ve got to be going “Walking speed”. I was more concerned/curious about triggering your right to cross and making ppl in cars stop for you when you are biking on sidewalk. See the updates and comments above.
actually, when riding in a crosswalk you’re not required to go at a walking speed… you are required to not go faster than the slowest pedestrian though… so you can’t pass anybody while crossing in the crosswalk…
and if legally the sidewalk counts as part of the roadway then you would need to slow to a walking speed when entering the crosswalk… you could then speed up if nobody else was in the crosswalk…
Actually, when using a crosswalk on your bike, you are only required to enter the crosswalk at no greater than an ordinary walking pace–and only if motor vehicles are approaching. Once in the crosswalk there is no speed requirement, only the requirement to audibly warn pedestrians before passing them.
Just to finally clarify. John was right. I’ve posted an update. Turns out that, when trying to exercise your right to cross the road from the sidewalk, you do not have to dismount and become a “pedestrian” to do it. Thanks to the 2011 law change, you can be on your bike (even trackstanding!) and all you have to do is dip your front wheel into the road to trigger your right to cross. (of course, you still have to give folks some time to react before crossing.)
sidewalk riders have wicked trackstanding sKilZ.
The crosswalk in the middle of the bridge that takes 60th over 84 used to be the worst. Visibility was okay, but since there’s a very busy bus stop right there you’d frequently see people craning their necks to watch traffic- looking for the bus. However, this looks a hell of a lot like “intent to cross,” making things very difficult for an approaching cyclist or driver. Fortunately they cured this with some pedestrian-operated flashers, if only it wasn’t such an expensive solution it would be great to see everywhere.
this is why I rarely stop for people who look like they might be wanting to cross if there’s a bus stop on the corner… there have been way too many times that I’ve stopped for people that walked out into the road just to look for the bus…
now I just make sure that they’re actually in the road before I stop… which only helps a little…
I’ve always had mixed thoughts about our current laws with pedestrian crossings. The burden to “see and stop” functions well on slower streets in neighborhoods and congested urban areas, but it really doesn’t work well on fast streets, particularly those with multiple lanes.
At 30 mph it takes up to 625 ft to notice and stop for a pedestrian, which is about 3 Portland blocks in advance of the crossing. Add another block for every 10 mph increase in driver speed.
The physics and behavior of driving quickly isn’t compatible with the pedestrian crossing law. Because of this, physics wins out, and pedestrians are left out to dry.
Hmm. Methinks lower speeds are in order. You want high speeds? Take the interstate.
Absolutely, although it’s a difficult sell.
Alternatively, methods to increase visibility of the intent to cross can also help: Rapid Flash Beacons, Hybrid Beacons (HAWK) and full-blown traffic signals can all tell drivers that someone wants to cross far better than a dressed-in-grey person standing at the corner 4 blocks ahead.
I’m sold on HAWK signs after using the one on the 205 path often while commuting. More often than not people stop for me.
are you talking about the one on Division? I never use it, I always just assert my right of way… people are oddly really good about stopping at that crosswalk… I’m guessing that there’s a lot of pedestrian traffic so they’re used to it…
we cannot afford to spend 80K on HAWK signs when there is copenhagen-style separated infrastructure to build. safety first and think of the children!
I don’t know about you, but I ride the side streets because it is faster than driving on I-5 at rush hour.
this is why motorists are always pissed off at me for riding slowly through dense urban areas on my scooter… I’m only going to go fast enough for me to be able to see that there’s no pedestrian there, so the more sidewalk clutter there is the slower I’m going…
I never want to be the guy that says “I didn’t see them”… I’m the guy that says “I looked and there was nobody there”…
Brake check! The charts I find say that stopping distance (reaction distance + braking distance) is about 75 feet at 30 mph–roughly 25 paces, four parking spaces, or twice the width of the street. At 40 mph it’s about 120 feet, so yeah, speed is a big factor, but nowhere near a block. (625 feet is enough to react and brake from over 100 mph.)
I agree that crossing a fast street, for example 35 mph 82nd, at an unmarked crosswalk is way too hairy for pedestrians, but I chalk that up to speeding, inattentiveness and insufficient knowledge of rules-of-the-road by some drivers.
Oh yes… Stopping sight distance is much lower, but even ODOT concedes that stopping sight distance is an unrealistic measurement to use in Urban conditions:
Check out their report:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ACCESSMGT/docs/stopdist.pdf
For 30 mph they’ve got 94 feet as the “emergency stop” conditions for adequate stopping sight distance. But they encourage the use of “Decision Sight Distance” to reflect the realities of urban driving.
“Complex conditions, problems of expectancy, high volumes and high speed require more time for the perception-reaction process. These conditions are present on arterial streets and highways, particularly in urban areas. ”
Table 4B on p25 shows the high-end for complex urban conditions as 625 ft.
Can people stop in 100 ft? yes. But it is sudden, unexpected, and from my experience as a pedestrian, it’s unlikely to happen. If someone sees you only 100 ft in advance at 30 mph, they are *not* going to stop.
Thanks, good reference! “Decision Sight Distance” is a very useful term for thinking about this situation.
I think you mean Table 4B on page 32. That’s where it shows 625 feet, but it’s for a “speed/path/direction change” as opposed to a stop. I’d need to know more about the test criteria to evaluate that in terms of pedestrian crossing; it seems pretty long to change lanes, slow down, etc. It does show 500 feet for an urban “Decision Sight Distance” to stop from 30 mph.
The “urban” as opposed to “rural” (or even low occupancy suburban, I think) is a huge factor. In my experience as a driver, it’s much easier and faster to identify a pedestrian (etc) if they are the only thing moving along a street. Throw in more cars, bikes and peds, trolleys, signs and signals and it’s exponentially more complex. But still, identifying and stopping for a pedestrian sure doesn’t seem to take me 500 feet at 30, and I virtually never get near to using the anti-locks.
And from my view on the pedestrian side, where I cross a 30 mph neighborhood collector (but not urban-complex, fairly simply, usually low/mod volume) every day and–as Ted says, exercise my rights in a traffic-calming way–the problem I see isn’t inability to stop or even having to brake hard, it’s just driver inattention or ignorance of the law (giving them benefit of the doubt that it’s not intentional *cough*). I’m in WA (RCW 46.61.235) so I have to put a foot onto the roadway to assert my rights. Where I cross I have the safety of stepping into bike lanes (not heavily traveled) so I can be very visible without entering into a danger zone. While way too many drivers just blow past (well over half), those who do stop clearly aren’t anywhere near a panic or emergency stop, and that’s even if they’re within a couple of houses (~160 feet based on lot size). They stop well short of me, usually even before the crosswalk on the upstream side of the intersection.
So, my experience suggests to me that it’s not the “___ Sight Distance” which is the limiting factor, it’s the “Decision” part of the driver/car combo which is overrunning pedestrian rights. In other words, the drivers see me but DECIDE not to obey the law (or don’t know the law, which amounts to the same thing).
I guess it’s good that ODOT is considering such long distances in designing for pedestrian safety, but I think it’s also a concession by them to poor driver training and habits. I’d like to see improved driver skills be a larger part of public roadway design and use.
Your math is faulty. 3 city blocks to stop for a pedestrian at 30mph? No way, no how. You need probably 100 feet or so to identify a pedestrian and stop a car in going at 30 mph.
“And, did you know you could trigger the crosswalk law by dipping your bike’s wheel into the road?”
I knew this, but only because I attended one of the bicycling law talks with Ray Thomas. But drivers seem especially blind to cyclists on foot. Folks who will screech to a dangerous stop for pedestrians can’t even seem to recognize those same pedestrians who happen to be walking with a bike.
‘**NO** motorist knows this, unless they read this blog, or WPC’s–oops, I mean http://oregonwalks.org/.
As a pedestrian commuter, learning the language of this law has really accelerated my daily commute. Unfortunately most people are not aware of the “every intersection is a crosswalk unless marked otherwise” concept, so care must be taken when crossing at W Burnside and 17th, for example. However knowing I can cross there, and confidently doing so when there’s a car well within safe slowing distance, that has really made life easier.
it’s also bad on SE Foster where there’s a street corner almost every 50 feet, and sometimes three corners in that span, on both sides of the road…
Jonathan,
How about explaining what constitutes a crosswalk in Portland? I don’t know if things have changed, but all intersections contain crosswalks: the 10 feet closest to the intersection on each street, whether they are marked or unmarked.
Not just Portland. All of Oregon. Every corner is a crosswalk whether marked or unmarked (except where at an intersection one corner is marked and the other is not).
I recall that there’s even a provision (but I can’t find reference) that says “midblock” crossings are legal in unmarked areas if the distance between other legal crosswalks is above some threshold (that I can’t remember) in distance.
I can’t find the reference, but it’s worth noting that while those completely unmarked midblock crossings (where there’s no crosswalk for more than…something like 300′ in either direction) are legal in that you can’t be cited for crossing, pedestrians so crossing are not *in* a crosswalk and therefore are legally bound to yield right of way to motor vehicles there. So…use caution there.
moonwalk
If our community’s hyper-involved knowledge base is this confused imagine how little the average automotive driver knows.
Multiply that level of unintentional ignorance by all your non-biking family, friends and acquaintances.
Shudder and whimper for your fate.
Mrs Dibbly & I have had 2 sets of visitors recently: Mom Dibbly in August and a friend from north Florida with her husband & 17 year-old daughter in early Oct. They were all amazed about how polite Portland drivers are, generally, about about stopping for pedestrians. (We do live downtown where drivers are more accustomed to behaving like human beings.) Thinking about it, I have to agree that it is remarkably different than how people drive there.
When you’re on foot — know your rights. Use them or loose them. Help little old ladies and gents exercise theirs by crossing with them. If you’re an able-bodied youngish person with good reaction times, help calm the streets of Portland by exercising your rights on a regular basis — cross arterials on foot at unsignalized intersections just to help calm the streets.
When you’re on your bike — know pedestrians’ rights, & help familiarize other peds and bikes by stopping for pedestrians while yelling out “PEDESTRIAN!” so other bikes behind you stop too. & turn your front wheel (or whole bike) a bit sideways so pedestrians and bikes behind you know you’re not going to commence forward movement without straightening your wheel first.
Thanks for covering this, Jonathan, and thanks to all who got the law rewritten a couple years ago.
My $0.02
Ted Buehler
&, of course, if you want to help calm Portland streets by crossing them legally, never ever ever put yourself in a position where you can’t jump out of the way with a bit of time to spare if someone fails to yield!
Ted Buehler
Like, don’t be
* distracted
* a bit sick, so you can’t move so fast
* don’t play chicken
etc.
Be smart. Easy to forget if you feel like a crusader…
&, don’t be an ass. Don’t jump out in front of traffic just because you can. The only time I’ve gotten cussed out in Portland as a pedestrian was when I stepped out in front of a bicyclist without even pausing at the curb. He was like “WTF? Why don’t you wait your turn?” Which I figured was a somewhat valid point, and now I at least pause a bit at curbs at arterials on cross-town foot travel. FWIW.
The best way to calm streets, if you happen to find yourself in the drivers seat is to be a pacecar driver.
http://www.slcdocs.com/transportation/TrafficManagement/PDF/pace2000.pdf
makes me wish I had a car so I could put that logo in the back window…
And it should be noted that drivers (and riders) are required to stop for all pedestrians, not just those wearing reflective clothing or blinking lights. To do this requires drivers at night to proceed slower than the speed limit on some streets (like Powell), especially if they’re not lit well enough to notice pedestrians until the driver’s headlights illuminate them. Drivers should not be driving “beyond their lights”.
Thank you!
Look around in the evening. Oddly — and this would probably shock the marketing department at PBOT and any member of the Portland Police involved in writing press releases for pedestrian-related crashes — you’ll find almost no one walking around dressed like an orange traffic cone. Normal clothes can often be described as “dark.” Black isn’t just the new black, it’s the old black. It’s black and a whole lot of people wear it.
So wherever you’re required to stop for pedestrians, you’re required to stop for them no matter what they’re wearing. If you have to slow down in order to see ordinary pedestrians in time to stop for them, then you have to slow down. Easy.
For safety’s sake, I hope folks will consider dismounting from their bikes when wanting to exercise crosswalk rights, esp. at unmarked crosswalks.
Consider that some of the most dangerous situations arise when both parties think they have the right of way: a cyclist rolls into the street in an unmarked crosswalk feeling empowered by the law, and a motorist is cruising along also feeling the right of way by interpreting the cyclist as a vehicle which has to wait to cross. It’s a formula for disaster. We all can be stubborn at times about exerting [what we believe is] our right of way … it’s a game of chicken.
Dismounting gets you to look and behave like a pedestrian, and motorists will be much more amenable to respecting the crosswalk laws for you.
It’s one of those odd scenarios where, as a cyclist, you are safer by shapeshifting into a royal pedestrian.
I do this when crossing MLK at unsignalized crossings– I begin by pushing my bike wheel further and further into the intersection until, at last, some exasperated motorist comes to a begrudging halt. Then it’s Frogger across the remaining lanes.
also, if you’re on your bike while on the sidewalk it sometimes looks like you’re in the road and thus don’t have the right of way…
it’s happened to me a few times where I would have stopped had I known that the bike was on the sidewalk but from the approach it looks like they’re on the road…
I just try to stay off the sidewalks…
As a driver I find that pedestrians and bike riders often do not look both directions and proceed because they have the right of way. I think that “common sense” is more important than who has the right of way. My mother taught me to look both ways before proceeding and I think that’s the best law of all. I see too many people dangerously not doing so because they “have the right”. That is very dangerous. Safety is more important than being right.
As a human who drives a car but also frequently walks and bikes, I find that drivers often do not look for pedestrians at intersections and proceed because they think they have the right of way. I think that “common sense” is a myth often defined as “assuming everyone thinks the way I think, regardless of evidence.” My mother taught me to look both ways before proceeding but if I have the right of way then you have no right to judge me further. I see too many people failing to yield to pedestrians at intersections when they have no legal or moral right to do so. That is very dangerous. You own safety is your own business, but endangering others is something you have no right to do.
I am confused about the crosswalk/bike thing: At Belmont and 33rd, 33rd has a “Stop” sign, but there is a (much abused) marked cross walk on Belmont…So if I would be on the cross walk with my bike the cars would have to stop, if I am on the street, I would have to wait?
Yes, and yes. Stops signs are nullified in the presence of an sidewalk user’s attempt to cross at a marked crosswalk or unmarked corner.
If a bike is at an intersection they have to wait for traffic to clear before they cross if they are in the traffic lane. If they come to an intersection and move over to the crosswalk the cars should have to stop for them. Some of the crossings like where Going street bike path crosses MLK is not a crosswalk so cars do not have to stop for those, unless the bike is in the crosswalk.
Bikes have to enter the crosswalk at a walking speed also. If they roll out at a biking speed it is not fair to the driver to stop for something happening too fast.
Whatever the hell the law is for crossing at the corner (or crosswalk), motorists simply do not know it. Having the law on the books will help a creamed crosswalker recover damages in court, but it does jack-squat to change motorist behavior. When will the state, or this city for that matter, inform its citizens of changes in the law–particularly those changes that have critical safety impact? I’m feel I should start “extending into the roadway” my freaking baseball bat. Not joking.
I apologize for the rant. I’m worked up over this. I’m used to cars not slowing or stopping when I have both feet off the curb, and place myself at the edge of the parking lane. But I was nearly hit on Saturday while crossing Fremont at NE 19th, by a car that was a full block away when I started. It was wet, and when I was about five feet into the roadway, I realized that car was speeding and wasn’t slowing down (the limit there is 30, and they seemed to be doing above 45). Instinct told me to rush ahead out of the way, when I saw that another car coming from the opposite direction also wasn’t slowing, cutting off my forward escape. I quickly scramble backward, lucky not to slip on the wet pavement. Neither car slowed in the least, and I only missed being hit by a matter of about two feet.
My son’s million-dollar idea is a handheld reflective fabric crosswalk sign that telescopes out from a collapsible umbrella mechanism. My only addition would be a freshly cut house key, welded to the end of it.
North and northeast there are some people driving that shouldn’t be. They think it is a God given right to drive and a cultural right to drive any way they please. Due vigilance is necessary for survival. Insurance rates are also higher in these parts of town.
Why not wait til it was safe to cross. One of the first things my grandma taught me was to not walk into the path of moving cars or bicycles. I just wait until I can cross without slowing anyone else down. If someone stops for me and it is clear then I will cross. I f no one wants to stop then I just wait til there is a break in traffic. Portland pedestrians seem to have the attitude that the world revolves around them. I have never seen so many pedestrians walk right out into the street without looking as I have here in Portland.
It was safe, until the driver made it unsafe. The driver is the only one at fault here.
When a pedestrian is hit by a driver, many people use phrasing like yours, saying that the pedestrian should have been more careful. Pop quiz: how many crime victims were careful enough not to be crime victims? Answer: zero. It’s a tautology; there’s no “you were careful enough, but still got hurt” possible by that standard, because if you were careful enough not to get hurt, you wouldn’t have been.
So drop the tautology. Was the pedestrian careful enough to ensure she was following all the laws? Yes. Was the driver? No. Correct the driver, not the pedestrian.
We’re each individually capable of determining our own acceptable level of risk when acting within the law. We can go skydiving, skiing, or we can even try to legally cross the street. However, we are responsible not to endanger others, especially in ways that are expressly illegal; I can’t shove someone out of a plane, run over a skier who’s in front of me, or drive my car into a pedestrian who’s legally using the crosswalk.
Blame the person who’s illegally endangering others, not the one who’s not.
if it wasn’t for the extra weight I’d carry small rocks in my pockets to toss on the cars that don’t stop as they go by… legally they aren’t supposed to be there because they’re supposed to be stopped, and there’s no law against throwing a small rock into the road…
Right: the primary issue being not to “constitute an immediate hazard” upon entering the crosswalk from the sidewalk.
The closest I’ve come to getting hit was crossing SW Market at Park, northbound, returning home from the PSU Farmers’ Market, by a streetcar. It was at least a block away when I started and I swear it accelerated. I understand that those things can’t stop quickly but it would have been nice if the driver (pilot? captain? helmsman?) had at least let off the pedal. I had enough time to get across the street, but it was close enough that one stumble and Mrs Dibbly would be retiring on a big legal payout.
So bicyclists can use crosswalks with out waiting their turn? That’s ridiculous.
Can’t recall seeing this done legally before. Most cyclists dismount, making them a pedestrian, or are traveling faster than walking speed (illegal)
Not sure what you mean by “turn”, or how you figure anyone thinks bicyclists don’t have to wait for theirs, but here is the upshot of the actual law:
At a non-signalized crosswalk, marked or unmarked, a pedestrian or bicyclist asserts their right-of-way in crossing the street by placing any part of their body, or an extension of their body, including things like canes, strollers, or a bicycle wheel into the crosswalk. As long as the person crossing has not “left a curb or place of safety and entered the path of a vehicle that is so close as to create an immediate hazard”, they then have right of way and motorists are legally obligated to stop and allow them to cross. The only special rule for a bicyclist is that they must approach and/or enter a crosswalk at a speed no greater than an ordinary walk; they may speed up after entering the crosswalk as long as they yield to pedestrians who may be present. A bicyclist is not required to dismount and walk, or to continue at a “walking pace” when in a crosswalk.
Taking “turns”, as you mention would seem to only apply at a signalized crosswalk, where everyone must wait for their respective signals prior to entering the intersection. At a non-signalized crosswalk, whose “turn” would it be at any given time?
I was crossing a signalized crosswalk across 3 lanes of stopped traffic with a green light riding my bike at walking speed.Before I got to the end of the crosswalk. An older gentleman darted out without looking and knocked me 20 ft through the air.I went to emergency.But no broken bones.To add insult to injury I was ticketed by police for riding my bike through the crosswalk!…I couldn’t sit down for a month.