Why Do Pedestrians Have The Right Of Way??

[polak]

In Alberta, pedestrians have the right of way at any crosswalk.

“Crosswalk” means:

That part of a roadway at an intersection included within the connection of the lateral line of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway, or any part of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or by other markings on the road surface.

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2002_304.pdf

So any where that a sidewalk continues on the other side of the road and/or places specifically marked as so.

Call me crazy but this makes absolutely ZERO sense.

Cars are much easier to see at all times of the day, but especially at night, they are louder, they are usually travelling at much faster speeds, they are much harder to stop and require exponentially more distance do so and the operator of a car has a much bigger area to scan for potential dangers then a pedestrian would.

So why on earth do cars need to yield the right of way to pedestrians at uncontrolled crosswalks? I do not understand the logic behind this rule. I see zero benefit to it and it needlessly puts people at risk.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by polak

In Alberta, pedestrians have the right of way at any crosswalk.

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2002_304.pdf

So any where that a sidewalk continues on the other side of the road and/or places specifically marked as so.

Call me crazy but this makes absolutely ZERO sense.

Cars are much easier to see at all times of the day, but especially at night, they are louder, they are usually travelling at much faster speeds, they are much harder to stop and require exponentially more distance do so and the operator of a car has a much bigger area to scan for potential dangers then a pedestrian would.

So why on earth do cars need to yield the right of way to pedestrians at uncontrolled crosswalks? I do not understand the logic behind this rule. I see zero benefit to it and it needlessly puts people at risk.

Pedestrians are soft and breakable. They're not as easily replaced as a destroyed car. Pedestrians cost society a lot more to fix if they're damaged.

Pure economics.

Cowperson

[Huntingwhale]

Safety first bro

[FireFly]

When it's -40 and I'm walking in the cold but you're in a warm car, you can stop for me so that I can get where I'm going faster and get out of the cold. You're already out of the cold.

[cDnStealth]

The only problem I have with the whole "pedestrians have the right of way" rule is the attitude that a lot of pedestrians have. People just step out into traffic and assume that because they have the right of way that cars are magically going to stop for them. It's up to pedestrians to make sure that any on-coming traffic can see you and are able to stop. You may have the right of way on your side but that means jack #### if you get seriously injured or killed by a vehicle.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Pedestrians are soft and breakable. They're not as easily replaced as a destroyed car. Pedestrians cost society a lot more to fix if they're damaged.

Pure economics.

Cowperson

Yes, but I'm thinking if you switched the right of way, you'd cut down on both.

A mentality of "Don't cross until you are sure there is no car coming cause they will hit you" instead of "I'm sure he sees me" would probably improve the economics.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by FireFly

When it's -40 and I'm walking in the cold but you're in a warm car, you can stop for me so that I can get where I'm going faster and get out of the cold. You're already out of the cold.

I think what the OP is getting at is that I could just wander onto MacLeod Trail at somewhere like 53rd ave, and all the cars would have to slam on their brakes. Or on a less busy street a pedestrian can be walking down the sidewalk and do a quick 90 degree turn and step onto the street.

In places like Manitoba the pedestrians still have right of way; but must indicate their intentions of crossing before given right of way. Just stepping onto the street isn't enough.

[FlamesAddiction]

There are some crosswalks that if you didn't give pedestrians the right of way, then no one would ever stop to let people cross. It would be a completely ineffective crosswalk. You would then have to make it a controlled crosswalk which would slow down traffic.

I thought that it is, or at least used to be a law though, that pedestrians had to signal with their arm by pointing forward thereby giving vehicles a warning to stop. You never see people do this anymore though. People just walk out and hope for the best it seems.

[sixpacked]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

The only problem I have with the whole "pedestrians have the right of way" rule is the attitude that a lot of pedestrians have. People just step out into traffic and assume that because they have the right of way that cars are magically going to stop for them. It's up to pedestrians to make sure that any on-coming traffic can see you and are able to stop. You may have the right of way on your side but that means jack #### if you get seriously injured or killed by a vehicle.

Or you stop for someone who is obviously going to cross, but then they go ahead and start waving at you to keep going. FU I have stopped so that you may cross safely.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Pedestrians are soft and breakable. They're not as easily replaced as a destroyed car. Pedestrians cost society a lot more to fix if they're damaged.

Pure economics.

Cowperson

It only takes 9 months to replace a future pedestrian while a car may be damaged beyond repair.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I think what the OP is getting at is that I could just wander onto MacLeod Trail at somewhere like 53rd ave, and all the cars would have to slam on their brakes. Or on a less busy street a pedestrian can be walking down the sidewalk and do a quick 90 degree turn and step onto the street.

In places like Manitoba the pedestrians still have right of way; but must indicate their intentions of crossing before given right of way. Just stepping onto the street isn't enough.

I am pretty sure you need to do that here as well, in order to gain the right of way.

edit: Apparently I remembered incorrectly, or the exact law has changed.

from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2002_304.pdf

41(1) A person driving a vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk.
(2) Where a vehicle is stopped at a crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, a person driving any other vehicle that is approaching the stopped vehicle from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.
(3) At any place on a roadway other than at a crosswalk, a person driving a vehicle has the right of way over pedestrians unless otherwise directed by a peace officer or a traffic control device.
(4) Nothing in subsection (3) relieves a person driving a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of pedestrians.

Point 3 is interesting though.

[SilverGS]

The laws attempt to create a safer environment for pedestrians has the opposite affect I think. As mentioned people now assume cars have to stop for you so just venture out with full confidence they are on the right side of the law. However, in the end if the driver doesn't see you or is distracted and makes a mistake, which humans are prone to do quite often, the pedestrian will pay a huge price.

Having these right of way laws for pedestrians hasn't stopped control lights from being added anyway. Another was added recently on 17th Ave SW just for pedestrian crossing.

We need to make smarter and more cautious pedestrians that actually watch to make sure the car is slowing down and stopping for them instead of assuming their supposed to because it is stated in the legal code.

[Bunk]

I get there's some personal responsibility in there to ensure your own safety when crossing the street, but the last thing we should do is give vehicles the right-of-way at crosswalks. Vehicles are already dominant, giving cars the right-of-way just make it that much more crappy to be a pedestrian in North America. Just as pedestrians should be cautious and look - part of our responsibility as drivers is to be aware and watch for pedestrians - be aware of where crosswalks are as we drive down the road. It's a two way street - so to speak.

That said, there's a lot that can be done to improve the visibility of crosswalks. Something the Mayor is working on:

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald...tml?id=7824365

Another thing to remember is that we are ALL pedestrians (just some more frequently than others).

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Pedestrians cost society a lot more to fix if they're damaged.

Pure economics.

Given the average income levels here on CP, members pretty much own the damn road and should have the right of way above any beyond anything else.

[cDnStealth]

I don't trust other drivers when I am in my car so I sure as hell don't trust them when I cross the street. I don't care that the law is on my side. There is no moral victory if I am laying in a hospital bed or in a coffin.

[flamesfever]

The thing that bothers me is the odd teenager or group of teens that love to exersize their power by taking their own sweet time to cross the road, as you wait for them.

My wife used to teach her grade 2 kids to make sure they make eye contact with the driver before crossing, and to consider the car an elephant i.e. something you wouldn't want to get trampled by.

[Bertuzzied]

They dont'!!!!!!!!..... in the Market Mall parking by Shoppers Drug Mart! I'm lucky to be alive!

[jammies]

Pedestrians? Who cares, don't deflect us from finding a solution to the real enemy of all drivers: cyclists.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I get there's some personal responsibility in there to ensure your own safety when crossing the street, but the last thing we should do is give vehicles the right-of-way at crosswalks. Vehicles are already dominant, giving cars the right-of-way just make it that much more crappy to be a pedestrian in North America. Just as pedestrians should be cautious and look - part of our responsibility as drivers is to be aware and watch for pedestrians - be aware of where crosswalks are as we drive down the road. It's a two way street - so to speak.

I think safety should outweigh "sidewalk vibrancy".

I'm not saying outlaw pedestrians. I'm just saying switch the party that is responsible for the awareness because currently, the person who is going a lot faster, needs more time to stop and has a much harder time spotting the other party is the one that needs to yield. That doesn't make sense to me.

Again it's not like this change would really make it "harder to be a pedestrian". Almost every busy intersection in this city is controlled in some way anyways and for those that aren't I'm all for having crosswalks with signs that light up when the pedestrian presses the button to cross. I'm against drivers having to be the ones responsible for spotting the idiot walking across some dinky residential road at night with his dark jeans and jacket and earphones in not paying attention to the fact that I might not have noticed him because I'm also yielding to cars... etc.

[Red Ice Player]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The thing that bothers me is the odd teenager or group of teens that love to exersize their power by taking their own sweet time to cross the road, as you wait for them.

My wife used to teach her grade 2 kids to make sure they make eye contact with the driver before crossing, and to consider the car an elephant i.e. something you wouldn't want to get trampled by.

Then there's the beligerent homeless person crossing wherever and whenever he feels the need. I seldom honk at them anymore, as they are seeking confrontation anyway and they have all the time in the world.
I was going to suggest the eye contact thing. Obviously its not universally taught.