ped xings and ROW

De Clarke (de@...) wrote:
> Ed Beighe (ebeighe@...) wrote:
> > 
> > > Pedestrians have a right, in CA, to cross the street at any
> > > point including the middle of the block, and they have the right of way.
> > 
> > Really???!!! This just can't be correct -- the right of way part I mean, it
> > would be chaos(?)
> > 

City of Walnut Creek official traffic safety info online:

http://www.ci.walnut-creek.ca.us/crosswalks.html

precis:

it is illegal for a ped to cross the street other than at
an intersection only in business districts. elsewhere peds
can cross the street anywhere.

right of way is by a "who was here first" rule: a pedestrian
is not supposed to step out in front of a vehicle "close enough
to present a hazard," but a driver is supposed to yield to
any ped already crossing the street. I am surprised to find
that in the Walnut Creek document, this ROW rule seems to be
applied to marked crosswalks... given the aggressive flow of
traffic at many of our intersections, a ped who waited until
there was no car closely approaching would wait a heckuva 
long time 

Quote of the day:

"Studies have shown that the percentage of pedestrian accidents increases 
at locations where there are marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks
seem to give pedestrians a false sense of security. Although pedestrians 
may have the right-of-way, a painted line will not stop a vehicle."

Hmmm, translate that into car-speak: Studies have shown that the
percentage of vehicle accidents increases where traffic moves in
two directions on one roadbed. A yellow stripe down the road centre 
seems to give drivers a false sense of security.... 

CVC (1999, I don't think it's changed much)

CALIFORNIA CODES 
VEHICLE CODE 
SECTION 21950-21969 

21950. (a) 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) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian 
from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. 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 as to constitute an 
immediate hazard. No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay 
traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. 
(c) The provisions of subdivision (b) shall 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. 

is that amazing doubletalk, or what?

"no pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay traffic"...
notice who's being adjured to serve whose convenience 
drivers are only adjured to take care for the *safety* of
peds, not asked to refrain from delaying or stopping peds.

21952. The driver of any motor vehicle, prior to driving over or 
upon any sidewalk, shall yield the right-of-way to any pedestrian 
approaching thereon. 

driving upon a sidewalk? huh? I thought driving on
a sidewalk was just plain illegal, period, end of story.

21953. Whenever any pedestrian crosses a roadway other than by 
means of a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing, if a 
pedestrian tunnel or overhead crossing serves the place where the 
pedestrian is crossing the roadway, such pedestrian shall yield the 
right-of-way to all vehicles on the highway so near as to constitute 
an immediate hazard. 
This section shall not be construed to mean that a marked 
crosswalk, with or without a signal device, cannot be installed where 
a pedestrian tunnel or overhead crossing exists. 

so... if there is a pedestrian detour (tunnel or bridge) then
you can ignore it and cross the road (probably by a shorter
path), but you lose your ROW?

21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon 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 upon the 
roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard. 
(b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of 
a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any 
pedestrian upon a roadway. 

here's where I was wrong in my earlier post. the pedestrian
who crosses other than at an intersection does not have ROW.
and I disagree with this rule. this rule is the one that
means kids have no right to play in the street outside
their homes... I'd rather see the cars yield ROW to the
kids, myself.

21955. Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control 
signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross 
the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk. 

this is a real nuisance for peds in carcentric shopping
areas where blocks are very long and signalized -- you
can be in for a long rectangular walk just to cross over
to the shops directly opposite.

21966. No pedestrian shall proceed along a bicycle path or lane 
where there is an adjacent adequate pedestrian facility. 

(sigh) I wish this were more observed, especially
at dusk... Peds are my allies politically speaking,
but I dislike coming upon them suddenly in the bike
lane... and mixed-use paths are imho just awful.

anyway, I was wrong, wrong, wrong  CA peds can cross mid block 
only in non-business zones, and virtual crosswalks exist at 
intersections only.

something I am surprised not to see here (maybe it's in another
section?) is a rule about a crosswalk with people on it. I thought
there was a law that MV traffic had to stay out of the crosswalk as
long as anyone was walking in the striped area, i.e. wait for the
crosswalk to clear. I'll keep looking (or ask an expert).

while trolling for CA law, I ran across this document relevant
to bike lanes, cyclists' road rights, etc.

http://www.cvcbike.org/club/bikelaw.html

de

.............................................................................
:De Clarke, Software Engineer UCO/Lick Observatory, UCSC:
:Mail: de@... | :
:Web: www.ucolick.org | Don't Fear the Penguins :