Cyclist killed by self-driving car while walking her bike in AZ

[peterw_diy]

Actual Arizona law: https://www.azleg.gov/ars/28/00793.htm

28-793. Crossing at other than crosswalk

A. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.

B. A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.

C. Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.

As I mentioned before, the Arizona victim appears to have been violating item C because the two closest intersections have traffic signals, even though they’re over half a mile apart.

[lordofthemark]

@peterw_diy 176833 wrote:

Which law? You keep making anti-pedestrian assertions without citing actual statutes. I’m not aware of any Virginia law that forbids crossing outside of marked or unmarked crosswalks.

Here’s another Virginia citation for you: “No pedestrian shall step into a highway open to moving vehicular traffic at any point between intersections where his presence would be obscured from the vision of drivers of approaching vehicles by a vehicle or other obstruction at the curb or side.” (§ 46.2-926.).

I’m open to the possibility that Virginia law somewhere forbids pedestrians crossing mid-block even while portions I’ve cited seem to imply a right to cross “at [some] point between intersections” but you’re going to need to cite some actual law. Can you do that?

I’ve seen things like § 46.2-924’s requirement that “No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic” but I have never seen any statutory language supporting your assertions.

Would you please either provide some legal references or refrain from trying to criminalize pedestrian behavior?

Va code 46.2 923

When crossing highways, pedestrians shall not carelessly or maliciouslyinterfere with the orderly passage of vehicles. They shall cross, whereverpossible, only at intersections or marked crosswalks. Where intersectionscontain no marked crosswalks, pedestrians shall not be guilty of negligenceas a matter of law for crossing at any such intersection or betweenintersections when crossing by the most direct route.

However IANAL and my interpretation may be wrong. I will defer to a lawyer who specializes in these things.

If I am wrong, I would modify my text to

Crossing outside a crosswalk marked or unmarkied, may not be technically illegal and there are places where its reasonably prudent. I have a hard time seeing a five (!) lane road, with a median in the middle (which typically encourages FASTER speeds) and apparently a 45MPH posted speed limit as being a prudent place to do so (in fact I would probably question the placement of an unbuffered bike lane on a road like that) even if most of the time things work out okay.

If we are going to challenge AV’s and how they operate, and also challenge bad infra, based on particular incidents, as we should, we can’t ignore when contributory factors such as ped mistakes play some role. Because if we don’t acknowledge those, others will point them out.

I agree with Steve O, the penalty for a ped mistake should not be death. That is why I support lowering speed limits in the City of Alexandria, and considering speed an issue even when a pedestrian crossed imprudently- the spirit of VZ, IIUC, is to reduce deaths, period, not to assign blame. I just wanted to acknowledge the complexity of the causal factors here.

That makes the same point, and leaves the law to the lawyers .

As an aside, its kind of frustrating to be told I am trying to criminalize pedestrian behavior when all I am trying to do is clarify the law. I walk for transportation regularly, and engage in pedestrian as well as bike advocacy.

[Judd]

@lordofthemark 176837 wrote:

However IANAL

Giggle…

[lordofthemark]

@Judd 176841 wrote:

Giggle…

There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one. Consequently the language of everyday party-political controversy has to be borrowed from legal phraseology and conceptions. As most public men are or have been lawyers, they apply their legal habits and turn of mind to the conduct of affairs. Juries make all classes familiar with this. So legal language is pretty well adopted into common speech; the spirit of the law, born within schools and courts, spreads little by little beyond them; it infiltrates through society right down to the lowest ranks, till finally the whole people have contracted some of the ways and tastes of a magistrate. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

[dasgeh]

@lordofthemark 176827 wrote:

What are we arguing about?

I’m not sure. You seem to keep doubling down on your statement that crossing outside a crosswalk is illegal everywhere in the U.S. That’s simply not true, unless you define “crosswalk” as “anywhere that’s legal to cross”.

[Judd]

@dasgeh 176846 wrote:

I’m not sure. You seem to keep doubling down on your statement that crossing outside a crosswalk is illegal everywhere in the U.S. That’s simply not true, unless you define “crosswalk” as “anywhere that’s legal to cross”.

This is the proper way to double down: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/03/kfc-is-making-a-horrifying-double-down-chicken-n-w.html

[peterw_diy]

Thanks for the citation. I’d love it if somebody could explain what this means: “pedestrians shall not carelessly or maliciously interfere with the orderly passage of vehicles … Where intersections contain no marked crosswalks, pedestrians shall not be guilty of negligence as a matter of law for crossing … between intersections when crossing by the most direct route”

Does that mean crossing mid block in, say, a residential area with unmarked crosswalks is only illegal if the crossing is “maliciously” interfering with cars?

Also despite your highlighting, I think it’s arguable that the first sentence is most relevant and the issue of where a pedestrian crosses is only relevant if the crossing “carelessly or maliciously interfere with the orderly passage of vehicles”.

[lordofthemark]

@peterw_diy 176851 wrote:

Thanks for the citation. I’d love it if somebody could explain what this means: “pedestrians shall not carelessly or maliciously interfere with the orderly passage of vehicles … Where intersections contain no marked crosswalks, pedestrians shall not be guilty of negligence as a matter of law for crossing … between intersections when crossing by the most direct route”

Does that mean crossing mid block in, say, a residential area with unmarked crosswalks is only illegal if the crossing is “maliciously” interfering with cars?

Also despite your highlighting, I think it’s arguable that the first sentence is most relevant and the issue of where a pedestrian crosses is only relevant if the crossing “carelessly or maliciously interfere with the orderly passage of vehicles”.

I am not a lawyer. I would rather have an attorney assist in statutory interpretation.

[lordofthemark]

@dasgeh 176846 wrote:

I’m not sure. You seem to keep doubling down on your statement that crossing outside a crosswalk is illegal everywhere in the U.S. That’s simply not true, unless you define “crosswalk” as “anywhere that’s legal to cross”.

All I am trying to do is understand the causes of a tragedy in Arizona. I made an aside about legality. I see no benefit to pursuing that discussion. If you are really interested in it, and are prepared to do it in a manner that is not hostile, assumes good faith, and recognizes we are on the same side, I would be happy to do so. Have a good night.

[Vicegrip]

@Judd 176849 wrote:

This is the proper way to double down: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/03/kfc-is-making-a-horrifying-double-down-chicken-n-w.html

I think the bike was an e-bike…….

[VikingMariner]

https://electrek.co/2017/01/19/tesla-crash-rate-autopilot-nhtsa/

Good things come to all who wait.

[Author]

Posts