In most states, there is a crosswalk at a right angle to every intersection regardless of any markings, and typically at other obvious extensions of pedestrian walkways. It's not a crosswalk if you are within some legally defined distance from a marked crosswalk. I want to say something like 100 yds or feet but I don't actually know. And, in theory right of way is always to the pedestrian but I've also heard the best way to murder someone is hit them with a car on account of you'll likely get away with it. And I tell my children, you have right of way, but the car will win.
Rainbow crosswalks
- Thread starter AmyStrange
- Start date
Thermal
August Member
From NJ dot Gov. A pedestrian must:
- Not leave a "curb or other place of safety" by walking or running into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield or stop. (39:4-36)
- Yield to drivers when crossing a road at any point other than within a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection (39:4-36)
- Yield to drivers at intersection where the pedestrian does not have a green “walk” signal and where drivers have a green signal. (39:4-32)
Mojo
Mostly harmless
People have to be ordered not to do this?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
For the purpose of determining fault it has to be in the statute.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Is there no common law of negligence in the U.S.?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, but it is supplanted in some cases by explicit statute.
ETA: Traffic laws are criminal law in the U.S. and must be statutory. Common law (i.e. torts) has no effect in criminal matters.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Look.man, I'm not exaggerating in the slightest:
Tourists in my beach town will stride right off the curb into a 30mph roadway without even looking for traffic, pushing a goddamned stroller with their kid in it in front of them and expect drivers to run off the road or into a telephone pole to not hit them.
When one inevitably gets mowed down, the pedestrians are somewhat shocked to discover that no ticket is given to the vehicle operator, and that the pedestrians (or their survivors) are financially responsible for any damages to the vehicle.
Eta: because the cop is not often at the scene when it happens, the fault is determined by where in the street the pedestrian was when they were hit. If they just stepped off the curb and were hit, it can be assumed they stepped out in front of a vehicle that was too close to stop. If they made it all the way across and were hit, the driver had plenty of time to stop.
Also there was this huge public awareness campaign down here a few years back about stopping for pedestrians, which got all the nitwits thinking pedestrians had the right of way. That was fueled by a young woman who was killed in a beach town when she walked out from between two parked cars and got hit by a delivery truck. The driver was not charged with anything or even ticketed.
Last edited:
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
Rainbows are visions. But only illusions.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Because seven is a stronger number than six.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Exactly.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
No, they hated paying taxes on cheap tea.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Well here they're only used in the city centre.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
And they might get a ticket for wearing white after Labor Day.
AmyStrange
Philosopher
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
According to U.S. Dept. of Transportation, there isn't any. That is to say, there is no evidence that one form of crosswalk marking is any more or less effective than another in achieving safety for pedestrians. What seems to matter is that the crosswalk marking color is visibly different than the surrounding roadway surface.
In my city, crosswalks are designated most often by two parallel white lines with the interior painted brick red to mimic cobblestones. Here's one of our busiest downtown intersections.
You can see the nominal red-painted, white-lined crosswalks near the bottom. Crosshatching is reserved for mid-block crossings (near the top). And at the top left is an un-reddened crossing made simply by white lines. Outside the downtown area, the simple white lines are the most common—no interior color. By the evidence, a rainbow-painted interior would actually be more visible than plain white lines.
The safety argument seems mostly a red herring. With my engineer hat on, I can appreciate the argument that roadway markings should be clear and uniform. But community and neighborhood standards seem to be preferred, and the data do not show that this impairs safety.
In my city, people are being run over simply because drivers don't care about pedestrians. A few years ago, Salt Lake police made a concerted effort to ticket drivers for not yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks, but the problem was never the visibility of the crosswalk. Salt Lake drivers are just jerks.
More seriously, our streets are often covered with snow. Because of that, road signs identify designated pedestrian crossings.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
As I struggle to decode the rhetoric, it seems that "political" refers to any topic upon which there might be disagreement among the public. This seems reinforced by trying to use the organs of government either to defend or attack either side of that disagreement. Under the rubric of political neutrality, policies are made that forbid any "politically divisive" expression under color of government authority. While this seems like a workable solution, it too often ends up with a small, vocally disagreeable faction of an ostensibly disinterested majority imposing their will upon a disfavored minority in the name of political neutrality, where "neutrality" is defined as the majority opinion on the topic. Or in other words, "politically divisive" is simply a less provocative way to say, "Ideas I don't like."
As I said, previously, of or relating to government. If you want the government to do something or stop doing something, that's political. The rainbow flag has generally been symbol demonstrating support for equal rights for gay people. So, yes that is a political statement. That is unless those displaying are just doing so as an empty gesture with no particular concern for how gay people are legally treated.
And of course, the government gets to decide on what color sidewalks are painted, so that is necessarily political.
And of course, the government gets to decide on what color sidewalks are painted, so that is necessarily political.
Michigan anchors bright yellow plastic upright standards with aggressively
red, white, and black words and symbols telling drivers to YIELD FOR PEDESTRIANS IN CROSSWALK!
STATE LAW! in the middle of the street, in combination with conventional pavement
striping. They seem to last for quite a while, and don't attract too many
stick-on slogans or graffiti. But of course they aren't universal; less busy crossings
dont have them.
Or anything! And after more close calls than I can count, I, a poor pedestrian, would be grateful to anybody
who donated paint and labor to making a deathtrap even a little less
deathly.
If they render a motif that gripes the MAGAtools, I'd appreciate that too.
red, white, and black words and symbols telling drivers to YIELD FOR PEDESTRIANS IN CROSSWALK!
STATE LAW! in the middle of the street, in combination with conventional pavement
striping. They seem to last for quite a while, and don't attract too many
stick-on slogans or graffiti. But of course they aren't universal; less busy crossings
dont have them.
Or anything! And after more close calls than I can count, I, a poor pedestrian, would be grateful to anybody
who donated paint and labor to making a deathtrap even a little less
deathly.
If they render a motif that gripes the MAGAtools, I'd appreciate that too.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Indeed. Wanting the government to sponsor your religious celebration on the 24th of July is a political statement. The influence of the Mormon church over state and local government is quite politically divisive. There you go. If "political divisiveness" is really the standard, then we should not have the Days of '47 Parade.
But of course people want to celebrate who they are, where they came from, and how they got where they are. I don't believe we should outlaw the Mormon pioneer celebration any more than we should outlaw the Pride parade.
I agree. The rainbow flag was designed for a Pride parade, which is a march in support of a certain public policy of acceptance and equal protection. That's not to say all uses of it are necessarily a statement of political advocacy; some are simply an expression of identity and/or solidarity without necessarily aiming at policy. But I agree that displaying the rainbow flag in public is making a statement that some other members of the public may dislike, and that the mitigation of those interests raises a political question. Then the question becomes how to resolve it.
At one extreme you simply outlaw anything except the color scheme standardized by the municipality for purely utilitarian reasons. But as soon as you allow expressive content of any kind—which seems to be what some communities want—then your regulation of that expression has to follow certain rules. At first blush, it seems like disallowing any "politically devisive" content would be reasonable restriction. But that turns on what you define as divisive and why.
It matters because back in the day cities would close their municipal swimming pools altogether when court decisions didn't allow them to be segregated by race. That is, if the city couldn't regulate the use of its public facilities in an unconstitutional manner, then it simply denied the use of the facilities to everyone and blamed the loss of the community resource on those pesky woke rabble rousers. The fear is that the same thing is happening again only a little more subtly. If towns can't regulate expression the way the majority wants, then they get rid of all expression altogether and blame it on the unfavored minority for allegedly causing political divisions that require such drastic action. All you need is a little rhetoric to explain why the majority's expression isn't politically divisive, and you have the desired outcome.
Originally Orlando had no problem with the rainbow crosswalk as an expression of grief and remembrance for a tragic occurrence nearby. Yes, it's a public statement. Yes, it has "political" content in that the perceived motivation for the tragedy was a matter of public debate and policy concerns. But let's not pretend that the removal of the rainbow crosswalk was anything other than an attempt to suppress speech by an unfavored minority. It wasn't out of an overriding concern for political divisiveness in general. It wasn't out of a concern for public safety. That these concerns suddenly came to Orlando's attention when it became politically tolerable to oppress minorities again isn't lost. I'm not saying Orlando can't regulate its crosswalks or change its mind. But the timing and target is suspicious. Just because a statement (and arguably every expressive statement) can have a political overtone doesn't mean Orlando is obliged to suppress it.