If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Char Jackson
wrote: anyone that is in a position where they must 'slam on the brakes' to avoid hitting someone or something is not paying attention and also driving too fast for conditions. Methinks you haven't driven that much. I've driven well in excess 1,000,000 miles, and I can tell you that the sudden appearance of objects in your drive path can happen whether or not you are paying attention. of course they can. what you miss is that if a driver can't avoid such events, they were not paying attention and/or driving too fast for conditions, and i'll add to that, and/or driving while intoxicated. Utter and complete nonsense. Have you ever driven? nothing nonsensical about it. |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Char Jackson
wrote: Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that idea. the motor vehicle code. Not true here in the US, AFAIK, though it could be different in your country. see links in other post. I did, thanks. I thought it was interesting that they didn't support your position. they did. here's mo http://richmondsfblog.com/2010/07/20...-or-it-could-c ost-you-police-planning-stings/ SFAppeal reports that the SFPD will be kicking off targeted pedestrian stings in and around the area of Golden Gate Park, specifically the district patrolled by the Park Police. .... The law states that if a pedestrian is waiting to cross at a crosswalk, vehicles must yield. Drivers must yield even if the pedestrian is in an unmarked crosswalk intersection. If the pedestrian is in an unmarked crosswalk, they must look before stepping off the curb but if it is a marked crosswalk they are free to step into the intersection. Vehicles must yield in both situations. https://www.gainesville.com/article/LK/20100601/News/604151973/GS/ When Kelly Stauff saw the man in the crosswalk, it was too late to stop. She didn¹t hit the man, who turned out to be a Gainesville police officer in street clothes, but Stauff was nailed with a $154 ticket for failing to yield to a pedestrian. .... A study in January showed that only about 20 percent of drivers in the city yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Approximately three crashes a week involve a pedestrian, officers have said. Drivers must yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk and must yield to a pedestrian even if there are no pavement markings on the crosswalk. https://www.statesmanjournal.com/sto...lem-police-beg in-undercover-pedestrian-safety-campaign/1302233002/ Plainclothes officers will be taking to crosswalks, both marked and unmarked,*across the city to make sure drivers are yielding to pedestrians. .... Officials say failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk and for passing a stopped vehicle at a crosswalk are class B violations which carry a fine of up to $265. https://www.citylab.com/transportati...ngs-drivers-wh o-dont-yield-crosswalks-does-it-really-work/5221/ There were at least 56 very unhappy people in Fort Lee, New Jersey, last Friday, after a police sting operation resulted in a flurry of traffic tickets for drivers who failed to yield for pedestrians in crosswalks. The blitz, which is part of a more comprehensive effort to educate both pedestrians and drivers about their responsibility to follow the law, drew angry comments from motorists who were stopped and issued $230 tickets, according to NorthJersey.com https://www.mcall.com/g00/news/local...em-crosswalk-s tings-20160621-story.html As officers watched on motorcycles hidden by a leafy tree, volunteers crossed New Street at Fairview Street again and again as vehicles whistled past them in daylight. One car stopped inches short of clipping a foot. Another screeched to a stop as the motorist, talking on a phone, seemed to suddenly notice the pedestrian. The motorcycle cops turned on their lights, hit their sirens and raced off to stop the drivers who didn't yield. https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...cited-during-c rosswalk-sting-in-south-salt-lake.html During the sting, an undercover officer entered the crosswalk to see if drivers would stop. As the officer walked back and forth in the crosswalk, other officers in patrol cars and motorcycles stood by. They didn't have to wait too long to find someone else not yielding to the pedestrian, which is a violation of state law. https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/dept...cs/crosswalk_e nforcementinitiatives.html The crosswalk awareness initiatives involve an off-duty, undercover police officer posing as a pedestrian crossing at a crosswalk.* If oncoming drivers don¹t stop for the pedestrian‹as required by law‹the vehicle will be pulled over by a police spotter further down the street. Motorists can face fines ranging from $50 to $500 for failure to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Last year the Police Department issued more than 1,000 citations for failure to stop for pedestrians in marked and unmarked crosswalks.* although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only once. it's a problem that solves itself. Not really. yes really. they either end up injured and can't walk, or they're dead. either way, no further occurrences. Nonsense. not at all. if someone steps in front of a moving vehicle and is hit, they won't be doing that anymore, assuming they recover enough to be able to walk again, that is. chances are fairly high they won't get to that point. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Char Jackson
wrote: anyone that is in a position where they must 'slam on the brakes' to avoid hitting someone or something is not paying attention and also driving too fast for conditions. Methinks you haven't driven that much. I've driven well in excess 1,000,000 miles, and I can tell you that the sudden appearance of objects in your drive path can happen whether or not you are paying attention. of course they can. what you miss is that if a driver can't avoid such events, they were not paying attention and/or driving too fast for conditions, and i'll add to that, and/or driving while intoxicated. According to accident reconstruction studies, the average braking reaction time (i.e. "event" - "apply brakes") is about 2.2 seconds. human reaction time is generally about 0.3 seconds. those with slower reaction times tend to crash. A car-length is approximately 15 feet (177 inches). Standard roadway in the busoness districts around here is 25 MPH (36 feet per second). Assuming an average driver, that means any "sudden" change in conditions within 6 car lengths will result in either slamming on the brakes, or an accident. i was taught to follow at least 3 seconds behind. of course, that never happens in the real world, which is one reason why there are so many crashes. Maybe if you'd slow down you wouldn't have "so many crashes". i'm not the one crashing and slowing down isn't the issue. driving too fast for conditions and not paying attention is. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Char Jackson
wrote: True, in fact most Canadians live south of the 49th parallel. However, we have a continental climate over most of the country, so Washington State is balmy compared to most of Canada. not last week, when they got hit with a lot of snow... Person A: "It was sunny yesterday!" nospam: "not last night, it wasn't!" you might think you're being funny, but you're not. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weath...-snow-beat-exp ectations-seattle-this-month-is-now-its-snowiest-years/?noredirect=on The half-foot of snow pushed February¹s total to 20.2 inches, Seattle¹s snowiest month in 50 years. It¹s the seventh-snowiest month dating to 1895 and the fourth-snowiest since records have been kept at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. .... Beyond the risk of more snow, it also appears to want to stay colder than normal in the region for the foreseeable future. Forecasts and weather models suggest below-normal temperatures should continue for the next one to two weeks. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On 02/12/2019 4:55 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 02/12/2019 4:48 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:26:37 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , Wolf K wrote: Ontario is big. 1,096,395 km^2. Only Alaska and Quebec are bigger. I found it an interesting fact that Sudbury Ontario is farther south than much of Washington State. True, in fact most Canadians live south of the 49th parallel. However, we have a continental climate over most of the country, so Washington State is balmy compared to most of Canada. not last week, when they got hit with a lot of snow... Person A: "It was sunny yesterday!" nospam: "not last night, it wasn't!" Bang on, Char. Rene Hi again Char, Apparently the dummy doesn't know about traffic lights and such, Shucks even little kindergarten kids know about traffic signals and light signals. I guess he must live in a forest or maybe under a bridge. Rene |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Rene Lamontagne
wrote: ...Apparently the dummy doesn't know about traffic lights and such, Shucks even little kindergarten kids know about traffic signals and light signals. I guess he must live in a forest or maybe under a bridge. ad hominem, and traffic lights aren't the issue. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256 nospam wrote: In article , Dan Purgert wrote: anyone that is in a position where they must 'slam on the brakes' to avoid hitting someone or something is not paying attention and also driving too fast for conditions. Methinks you haven't driven that much. I've driven well in excess 1,000,000 miles, and I can tell you that the sudden appearance of objects in your drive path can happen whether or not you are paying attention. of course they can. what you miss is that if a driver can't avoid such events, they were not paying attention and/or driving too fast for conditions, and i'll add to that, and/or driving while intoxicated. According to accident reconstruction studies, the average braking reaction time (i.e. "event" - "apply brakes") is about 2.2 seconds. human reaction time is generally about 0.3 seconds. Which is why I said "average braking reaction time", or in other words, the time it takes to actually get the vehicle's brakes engaged. That is: 1. see problem, recognize as such 2. pull foot off throttle 3. move to brake pedal, and (if applicable) clutch 4. engage brakes. Absolute best case according to the NHTSA is 1.5 seconds to react to a surprise road hazard and start applying the brakes -- or approx 55 feet / 3.5 car lengths ... those with slower reaction times tend to crash. A car-length is approximately 15 feet (177 inches). Standard roadway in the busoness districts around here is 25 MPH (36 feet per second). Assuming an average driver, that means any "sudden" change in conditions within 6 car lengths will result in either slamming on the brakes, or an accident. i was taught to follow at least 3 seconds behind. The scenario is a "surprise" pedestrian darting out into the road while they have a red "don't walk" signal. Not the car you're tailgating. "3 seconds behind" is precisely becayse of the average ~2 seconds to start braking the car ... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEBcqaUD8uEzVNxUrujhHd8xJ5ooEFAlxjaK 0ACgkQjhHd8xJ5 ooGPawf/fiY7T7hrSEjzhJIBTjoZcv7GOvhpPcFxA6oPPTi2I5jtXQ0LH6 wlhG3z 8dZjCwNKRPsjVu6NP0WQqiUm+3oZvmiNOng+XKnBpeFqfv1rjY D9t6RpuTboZ7qu IxvOK3bGVfiZpcCyvPRlh7GBa9VVugBjVT9pmpGqKBUDCHaxdr GCunHFvE3stK5e 2PLumPXy5/JLMkooLhq/v3hyeqhv4SYK3HylAK7vXOsj7VWsvWP8Mg4cqmFSGjpV Lc3irOlBHBRL65S1NkLVsqmz4GyQzYe47AW/yvMJ7HMzUbb98ITEhWtS6awhVkVz ZPXePUzRM3x4tfBT+R5jzjqUem65Ww== =XFFB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- |_|O|_| |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert |O|O|O| PGP: 05CA 9A50 3F2E 1335 4DC5 4AEE 8E11 DDF3 1279 A281 |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Dan Purgert
wrote: Standard roadway in the busoness districts around here is 25 MPH (36 feet per second). Assuming an average driver, that means any "sudden" change in conditions within 6 car lengths will result in either slamming on the brakes, or an accident. i was taught to follow at least 3 seconds behind. The scenario is a "surprise" pedestrian darting out into the road while they have a red "don't walk" signal. Not the car you're tailgating. the 3 second rule is for *any* unexpected event, not just pedestrians, which are normally very easy to avoid. "3 seconds behind" is precisely becayse of the average ~2 seconds to start braking the car ... no, it's because most of the time, people aren't paying attention to driving so they need the extra padding. they're talking to their passengers, fiddling with the radio, trying to get their kids to stop fighting, drinking coffee or a big gulp, reading a paper map (in the old days), talking on the phone (more recently) or a wealth of other things unrelated to driving. |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:48:12 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote: On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:26:37 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , Wolf K wrote: Ontario is big. 1,096,395 km^2. Only Alaska and Quebec are bigger. I found it an interesting fact that Sudbury Ontario is farther south than much of Washington State. True, in fact most Canadians live south of the 49th parallel. However, we have a continental climate over most of the country, so Washington State is balmy compared to most of Canada. not last week, when they got hit with a lot of snow... Person A: "It was sunny yesterday!" nospam: "not last night, it wasn't!" :-) -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:55:50 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote: On 02/12/2019 4:48 PM, Char Jackson wrote: On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 15:26:37 -0500, nospam wrote: In article , Wolf K wrote: Ontario is big. 1,096,395 km^2. Only Alaska and Quebec are bigger. I found it an interesting fact that Sudbury Ontario is farther south than much of Washington State. True, in fact most Canadians live south of the 49th parallel. However, we have a continental climate over most of the country, so Washington State is balmy compared to most of Canada. not last week, when they got hit with a lot of snow... Person A: "It was sunny yesterday!" nospam: "not last night, it wasn't!" Bang on, Char. Dammit! I at first wrote that but then thought it was unnecessarily provocative and deleted it. (-: -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 11:38:27 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Rene Lamontagne wrote: Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting her. pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for not paying attention. Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that idea. the motor vehicle code. If that is true it is a most unusual motor vehicle code. Which one i it. Can you cite/quote it? although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only once. it's a problem that solves itself. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 10:51:31 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote: On 02/12/2019 10:38 AM, nospam wrote: In article , Rene Lamontagne wrote: Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting her. pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for not paying attention. Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that idea. the motor vehicle code. although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only once. it's a problem that solves itself. Show me your proof. Check this https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26 "Military Police"? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting her. pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for not paying attention. Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that idea. the motor vehicle code. If that is true it is a most unusual motor vehicle code. Which one i it. Can you cite/quote it? nothing unusual about it. see other posts. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:46:13 -0500, nospam
wrote: In article , Rene Lamontagne wrote: Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting her. pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for not paying attention. Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that idea. the motor vehicle code. although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only once. it's a problem that solves itself. Show me your proof. Check this https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26 (f) Every driver will exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway and will exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated person. random states - california: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...tion.xhtml?sec tionNum=21950.&lawCode=VEH 21950.Â*Â* (a)Â*The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (b)Â*This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. (c)Â*The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian. (d)Â*Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. minnesota: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.21 Subd. 2. Rights in absence of signal. (a) Where traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the conditions as otherwise provided in this subdivision. ... Subd. 3.Crossing between intersections. (d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible signal when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. new york: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/ope...grams-bureau/r epository/pedestrian/resources/faq.html € When there is no traffic control signal, drivers must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians in the crosswalk. (Sec. 1151). € In addition, every driver approaching an intersection or crosswalk, must yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian accompanied by a guide dog or using a white or metallic cane (Sec. 1153). What if there is no crosswalk? € If there is no crosswalk, a pedestrian must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway (Sec. 1152). What about sidewalks? € The driver of a vehicle when entering or exiting from an alleyway, building, private road or driveway, must yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian on a sidewalk. (Sec. 1151-a). washington: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235 (1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway. None of this describes the situation where there is a signal and two of them specifically describe the situation where there is no signal. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
Microsoft 'Confirms' Windows 7 New Monthly Charge
On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 12:10:33 -0600, Rene Lamontagne
wrote: On 02/12/2019 11:46 AM, nospam wrote: In article , Rene Lamontagne wrote: Another example, A month or so ago I went to the downtown staples for printer supplies, on coming out I have to cross a busy 6 lane street, As I am waiting for the red light to turn green a woman texting on her phone starts walking across the street against the red light and very nearly got hit by a car who had to slam on his brakes to avoid hitting her. pedestrians have the right of way. if said driver had to 'slam on his brakes' to avoid a collision, then it's the driver who is at fault for not paying attention. Pedestrians do NOT have the right of way against a red light at a traffic light controlled intersection!!! Where in hell did you get that idea. the motor vehicle code. although, anyone stepping in front of a moving vehicle does so only once. it's a problem that solves itself. Show me your proof. Check this https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/32/636.26 (f) Every driver will exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway and will exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated person. random states - california: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...tion.xhtml?sec tionNum=21950.&lawCode=VEH 21950. (a)Â*The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (b)Â*This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. (c)Â*The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian. (d)Â*Subdivision (b) does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection. minnesota: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/169.21 Subd. 2. Rights in absence of signal. (a) Where traffic-control signals are not in place or in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop to yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a marked crosswalk or at an intersection with no marked crosswalk. The driver must remain stopped until the pedestrian has passed the lane in which the vehicle is stopped. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. This provision shall not apply under the conditions as otherwise provided in this subdivision. ... Subd. 3.Crossing between intersections. (d) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section every driver of a vehicle shall (1) exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicycle or pedestrian upon any roadway and (2) give an audible signal when necessary and exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. new york: https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/ope...grams-bureau/r epository/pedestrian/resources/faq.html € When there is no traffic control signal, drivers must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians in the crosswalk. (Sec. 1151). € In addition, every driver approaching an intersection or crosswalk, must yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian accompanied by a guide dog or using a white or metallic cane (Sec. 1153). What if there is no crosswalk? € If there is no crosswalk, a pedestrian must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway (Sec. 1152). What about sidewalks? € The driver of a vehicle when entering or exiting from an alleyway, building, private road or driveway, must yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian on a sidewalk. (Sec. 1151-a). washington: https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.61.235 (1) The operator of an approaching vehicle shall stop and remain stopped to allow a pedestrian or bicycle to cross the roadway within an unmarked or marked crosswalk when the pedestrian or bicycle is upon or within one lane of the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or onto which it is turning. For purposes of this section "half of the roadway" means all traffic lanes carrying traffic in one direction of travel, and includes the entire width of a one-way roadway. Your proof does not fit the situation that I saw, What I am saying is an intersection with traffic lights not just a crosswalk but regular Red, yellow and green lights and Walk and Don't walk lights for pedestrians. There, that's fairly easy to understand. Unless we exercise restraint we will be in for several hundreds posts which end up discussing an entirely different subject. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|