"Did you know?" Experiences with the ACPD and a run in with an aggressive motorist…

[mstone]

@baiskeli 52292 wrote:

I think what the police are trying to say is that IF a motorist cannot avoid the collision because there isn’t enough stopping space or other way to avoid a collision, it’s not the motorist’s fault, which is consistent with the law. It’s only a question that must be answered after a collision. In other words, if the pedestrian jumped out in the road in disregard of traffic, and a driver made every effort to avoid the collision anyway (slammed on the brakes, swerved) but still hit the pedestrian, the driver shouldn’t be cited for failure to yield.

It sounds to me like the police are just using confusing language instead of misstating the law. I hope so.

More importantly, why are they focused on that at all, instead of emphasizing motorists’ responsibility to be alert? What they don’t say is just as important as what they do say, and what they aren’t saying is that pedestrian safety is actually important to them. (Unless, of course, you believe that the root cause of most pedestrian safety issues is that pedestrians simply don’t know that a motorist might not be legally liable for killing the pedestrian if the pedestrian makes an accident unavoidable, and informing the pedestrian of this will make everything ok.)

[baiskeli]

@mstone 52296 wrote:

More importantly, why are they focused on that at all, instead of emphasizing motorists’ responsibility to be alert?

I don’t know without having been at the meeting. But I think educating pedestrians is as important to pedestrian safety as educating motorists. There are motorists who seem to think they can plow into someone, but there are also walkers who seem to think their ROW consists of walking out into traffic anywhere at any time. You know, that old simplistic canard “pedestrians always have the right of way.”

Again, I turn to the laws of physics. We should be explaining to pedestrians that no traffic law can make a car overcome Newton’s laws of motion, so you have to wait for a gap if you want to live. And motorists need to understand the same thing and realize that speeding makes it harder to avoid collisions.

[baiskeli]

@KLizotte 51913 wrote:

I don’t know what the law text says; I am only repeating what the cops told us at the in person meeting we had a year or so ago at the intersection of doom. That is how the ACPD interprets the law according to the two cops present. That is when we were told that cars could drive through a crosswalk if pedestrians were in it “if it was safe to do so.” That elicited some gasps from the audience.

Hmm. Sounds like they mean that a car can drive through one lane if pedestrians are only in a different lane. I can’t think of any other way to interpret that.

And it seems the law supports it:

“The drivers of vehicles entering, crossing, or turning at intersections shall change their course, slow down, or stop if necessary”

[baiskeli]

@Terpfan 51942 wrote:

Do some local jurisdictions have that law? I’ve seen signs saying State Law Must Stop for Pedestrians (I always chuckle since half the time we’re Commonwealth and other half state it seems). So I’m confused.

It’s all in § 46.2-924. But not easy reading as it does lend itself to two entirely different interpretations.

A. The driver of any vehicle on a highway shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian crossing such highway:

…
No pedestrian shall enter or cross an intersection in disregard of approaching traffic.

The drivers of vehicles entering, crossing, or turning at intersections shall change their course, slow down, or stop if necessary to permit pedestrians to cross such intersections safely and expeditiously.

Pedestrians crossing highways at intersections shall at all times have the right-of-way over vehicles making turns into the highways being crossed by the pedestrians.

Drivers must stop for pedestrians when the alternative is to plow into a pedestrian.

If a pedestrian is crossing but will be safely across before the car gets to that point, the car need not stop – he hasn’t reached the pedestrian, even though he can see the ped and is approaching the ped. He might need to slow down though.

If the pedestrian enters the car’s path and forces the car to slam on the brakes or swerve in a panic, or worse, hit the pedestrian, that’s disregard of traffic and the driver can’t be blamed.

It all makes sense when you think about it. But of course there are grey areas between the two.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 52305 wrote:

I don’t know without having been at the meeting. But I think educating pedestrians is as important to pedestrian safety as educating motorists. There are motorists who seem to think they can plow into someone, but there are also walkers who seem to think their ROW consists of walking out into traffic anywhere at any time. You know, that old simplistic canard “pedestrians always have the right of way.”[/quote]

So you handle that by reminding people to look, not focusing on post-mortem liability. I know you like to repeat the law of physics thing over and over, but my experience does not suggest that there’s a significant fraction of the population that actually believes that some interpretation of law will cause cars to stop when physics dictates that they cannot–so I don’t see any possible benefit in continuing to refute that (nonexistent) belief.

[dasgeh]

Pedestrians get the laws of physics. “Pedestrian education” is a red herring. **

The other red herring is discussing the situation where (1) the ped can cross without the car altering their travel (speed or course) and (2) the car would have to slam on their brakes to avoid the ped.

The meat of the question, and it’s been discussed plenty before, is whether the driver has the obligation to slow down, if possible, to allow the ped to cross. I can’t see a reading of the law that says no. However, the ACPD officer at the MMTSSSC meeting seemed to say that if car X is in a line of cars, regardless of how far back car X is in that line, car X would never have to yield to a ped. I don’t think it’s consistent with the law.

** Education of kids is another matter, and I would love to see more education in schools about getting around. It doesn’t sounds like there is much in Arlington, which is disappointing. We also learned last Thursday that NO elementary schools in Arlington have resources officers – if they have a request, they can run it through the SRO at the middle school they feed into. So middle school SROs end up being responsible for something like 10 schools each. I don’t think that is acceptable.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 52319 wrote:

So you handle that by reminding people to look, not focusing on post-mortem liability.

Yes.

I know you like to repeat the law of physics thing over and over, but my experience does not suggest that there’s a significant fraction of the population that actually believes that some interpretation of law will cause cars to stop when physics dictates that they cannot–so I don’t see any possible benefit in continuing to refute that (nonexistent) belief.

I only quote them to help those of us who spend too much time on the intricacies of the law to understand it (at least it helps me). Some pedestrians also understand that heavy car + speed + too close = death, but you’re right – if they all got that, we’d have fewer deaths.

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 52341 wrote:

Pedestrians get the laws of physics.

I’m just saying that if you follow the laws of physics, which you should be doing anyway, you’ll be following the laws of traffic too.

whether the driver has the obligation to slow down, if possible, to allow the ped to cross.

Well, if the alternative to allowing a ped to cross is squashing the ped, then the answer is obviously yes. And I think the law also clearly says that a car can’t force a ped to stop in the middle of the road to wait for a car to cross if they car has time to slow down instead. I think the law says that once a ped is in the road, the ped rules unless the car is simply incapable of avoiding a collision.

[dasgeh]

@baiskeli 52345 wrote:

I’m just saying that if you follow the laws of physics, which you should be doing anyway, you’ll be following the laws of traffic too.

Well, if the alternative to allowing a ped to cross is squashing the ped, then the answer is obviously yes.

Your first statement is wrong, because your second statement is not what happens. The alternative to allowing a ped to cross is to strand the ped in the crosswalk and continue at speed. So ped doesn’t get squashed and car breaks the law.

Take an example I see a few times a week: crosswalk across Lee Hwy near Nelson. Ped crosses one lane of traffic and is now between lanes (there is a median that breaks for the crosswalk — this is one continuous crosswalk). Cars coming the other direction don’t slow down to let the ped finish crossing. Ped knows laws of physics and doesn’t walk out in front of moving cars. But ped is in the crosswalk and the cars aren’t yielding the ROW.

This works too for every crosswalk that essentially a parking lane before crossing a travel lane. The ped can be standing in the parking lane, so in the crosswalk. The ped is not dumb, so wouldn’t jump in front of speeding cars. But ped is in the crosswalk, so the cars should be yielding.

ACPD should be enforcing this, but isn’t.

[mstone]

@baiskeli 52342 wrote:

I only quote them to help those of us who spend too much time on the intricacies of the law to understand it (at least it helps me). Some pedestrians also understand that heavy car + speed + too close = death, but you’re right – if they all got that, we’d have fewer deaths.

No, you quote that for no reason at all. With the exception of suicides (for whom the discussion is moot), there is NOBODY who knowingly puts themselves into a situation where a car cannot avoid hitting them. The root cause of accidents is generally one of 1) motorist wasn’t paying attention 2) pedestrian wasn’t paying attention or 3) pedestrian misjudged the situation. Lecturing people about “the laws of physics” doesn’t address any of those.

Sure, people sometimes knowingly step out into traffic and expect cars to stop, but that has nothing to do with a misunderstanding of the laws of physics. The may occasionally misjudge whether the car can stop (or, more likely, whether the motorist is paying attention) but they wouldn’t have stepped out if they didn’t think the car would stop, and thus don’t need the physics lesson.

Or, I suppose you can assume that there are people walking around (still alive) that are that stupid and ignorant of reality, but reachable and saveable through repetition. I see no evidence to support that idea.

Finally, the purpose of discussing the law in this context is to establish societal norms, not to mandate an individual’s assessment of risk in a specific circumstance; in general the law is not responsible for telling people what to do in order to be safe, the law’s purpose is to determine who is liable for injury. If you’re looking to the law as a safety manual, you’re going to be disappointed.

Edit to add: another reason to discuss the law is to educate motorists about the potential personal consequences of inattentiveness. This is not meant to encourage pedestrians to test the limits and act unsafely, but rather to give motorists an incentive (beyond not hurting other people, which is apparently insufficient) to act more safely. I don’t see a need for similar education about pedestrian liability, because most rational pedestrians will have already identified potential personal consequences of unsafe behavior.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 52349 wrote:

The ped is not dumb, so wouldn’t jump in front of speeding cars. But ped is in the crosswalk, so the cars should be yielding.

ACPD should be enforcing this, but isn’t.

ACPD can’t enforce that. It’s a violation of the desired societal norm, but until the pedestrian asserts his right of way and the motorist hits them, there hasn’t been a technical violation of the right of way. “Yield the right of way” does not mean “stop”. I would prefer a standard by which a motorist must clearly demonstrate an intent to yield the right of way (e.g., by preemptively slowing), so that a pedestrian has the confidence to proceed, but that’s not what the law requires. Now, if the police were enforcing the speed limit, this would mostly be moot…

I’d also like to see vigorous prosecution of anyone who does hit a pedestrian/cyclist, which is at least partially within the control of ACPD and which would, perhaps, effect some change in the culture of motorist immunity.

As far as changing the statute: I can’t imagine our current legislature taking up the pedestrian crossing issue and doing anything other than making things worse for pedestrians. So as undesirable as the current state is, I’d rather just see it left alone.

[dasgeh]

@mstone 52355 wrote:

ACPD can’t enforce that. It’s a violation of the desired societal norm, but until the pedestrian asserts his right of way and the motorist hits them, there hasn’t been a technical violation of the right of way. “Yield the right of way” does not mean “stop”. I would prefer a standard by which a motorist must clearly demonstrate an intent to yield the right of way (e.g., by preemptively slowing), so that a pedestrian has the confidence to proceed, but that’s not what the law requires. Now, if the police were enforcing the speed limit, this would mostly be moot…

Yes, they can enforce this. If a ped is in the crosswalk, and a car that could slow down to allow the ped to cross doesn’t, they’ve violated the law. I know of one instance of ACPD giving this ticket. I know of lots of examples of tickets under similar laws elsewhere. It doesn’t take an collision for a car to not yield ROW.

I agree with vigorous prosecution, which starts with ticketing at the scene (in ACPD’s purview).

[baiskeli]

@dasgeh 52349 wrote:

Your first statement is wrong, because your second statement is not what happens. The alternative to allowing a ped to cross is to strand the ped in the crosswalk and continue at speed. So ped doesn’t get squashed and car breaks the law.

When I said “you” I meant a pedestrian, not a driver.

Take an example I see a few times a week: crosswalk across Lee Hwy near Nelson. Ped crosses one lane of traffic and is now between lanes (there is a median that breaks for the crosswalk — this is one continuous crosswalk). Cars coming the other direction don’t slow down to let the ped finish crossing. Ped knows laws of physics and doesn’t walk out in front of moving cars. But ped is in the crosswalk and the cars aren’t yielding the ROW.

Yeah, the car should slow down enough to signal to the ped that he’s not going to hit the ped.

A car could go behind a pedestrian’s path though, or cross the ped’s path far in front of him when there is room – that would be safe, and not violate ROW, I would think, and I maybe those are the situations the cops were addressing.

[baiskeli]

@mstone 52355 wrote:

ACPD can’t enforce that. It’s a violation of the desired societal norm, but until the pedestrian asserts his right of way and the motorist hits them, there hasn’t been a technical violation of the right of way. “Yield the right of way” does not mean “stop”.

Whether its the law or not, or enforcable or not, when a pedestrian is already crossing and headed across a car’s path, the car should slow or stop, even if the pedestrian hesitates. I think that’s how it should be.

[mstone]

@dasgeh 52358 wrote:

Yes, they can enforce this. If a ped is in the crosswalk, and a car that could slow down to allow the ped to cross doesn’t, they’ve violated the law. I know of one instance of ACPD giving this ticket. I know of lots of examples of tickets under similar laws elsewhere. It doesn’t take an collision for a car to not yield ROW.

I agree with vigorous prosecution, which starts with ticketing at the scene (in ACPD’s purview).

They can issue the ticket, the question is whether it will stand up in court. (And like anything else in the law, ‘it might”.) But I don’t think you can point to anything in the code of virginia that equates yield and stop; there are, however, provisions which add a requirement to stop to a requirement to yield. Note that in some jurisdictions, a stop actually is specifically required. (E.g., DC: but note that the phrasing in DC is “stop AND yield the right of way”, not “stop TO yield the right of way”.)

[Author]

Posts