Fuji. Last Summer a 20 year old male was killed running across the QEW in Burlington. Why don't you play chicken with the cars and find out.
Stop the rhetoric anytime.
Stop the rhetoric anytime.
Is Jaywalking safer than crossing at the intersection?
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
Not always the case. I live near several schools, and the teenage students barely look at the cars as they begin to cross the street. They just assume the cars will come to a screeching halt for them, and then they laugh at the effect they have had on the traffic.
If the driver were to be momentarily distracted, their little games could end in tragedy.
One day a jerk kid tried that on me and I got as close as I could and screeched to stop. He was in no danger, but he didn't know it. Hot tires, hot pavement, a very pale boy. I'm sure he shit his drawers. I don't know if he ever did it again, but I laughed really hard that day.
That jaywalking might be safer is not a new idea. Makes good sense for all the various stated reasons, and it's the basic principle behind the surprisingly effective, no signs, no sidewalks, no controls traffic designs being implemented in Europe.
Follows the basic principle that so many TERBivores have enunciated in these threads: Everyone has to be alert. Always. The reason intersection crossings are dangerous is that everyone thinks the painted stripes and the coloured lights have made it safe for them to just bull ahead on through.
Follows the basic principle that so many TERBivores have enunciated in these threads: Everyone has to be alert. Always. The reason intersection crossings are dangerous is that everyone thinks the painted stripes and the coloured lights have made it safe for them to just bull ahead on through.
Ive found most stoplights are geared towards cars ie: the stoplights at my corner a four lane 2 way road turn DONT WALK after 9 seconds!!!! If you are a senior or a mom pushing a buggy etc. what choice do you have but to cross against the red light.
Both are dangerous.
I've been tapped two or three times by nit wits turning right on a red, looking left and proceeding. One time ended up on the hood of some guy's car pounding on the hood. Needless to say, he was startled too.
And to be honest, I've done it while driving, then hammered on the brakes at the last second. It was my fault - no denying it.
The key issue I suppose is for the pedestrian to have eyes in the back of his head and always to be on alert whle walking. A friend of mine was walking with her friend one time and this crazy driver just mounted the sidewalk and killed her friend horrbily right in front of her. Horror show.
I've been tapped two or three times by nit wits turning right on a red, looking left and proceeding. One time ended up on the hood of some guy's car pounding on the hood. Needless to say, he was startled too.
And to be honest, I've done it while driving, then hammered on the brakes at the last second. It was my fault - no denying it.
The key issue I suppose is for the pedestrian to have eyes in the back of his head and always to be on alert whle walking. A friend of mine was walking with her friend one time and this crazy driver just mounted the sidewalk and killed her friend horrbily right in front of her. Horror show.
Not so.....a driver swearving to miss a bad pedestrian could run into another jaywalker, someone on the sidewalk, another vehicle, a bicyclist, etc. This is why the HTA states that at crosswalks, a vehicle only has to stop if it is safe to do so......
This whole argument is based on the assumption (and a BIG assumption) that jaywalkers are more cautious. I beg to differ. They SHOULD look both ways but more often than not, don't. They SHOUDN'T jaywalk from between two parked cars, but they do. They SHOULDN'T cross from behind large vehicles, but they do. They SHOULD move quickly, but they don't.
This argument is like saying a gun is safer when it is unloaded. But then, it's only a paperweight then, not a gun.
It'd be much safer if pedestrians and drivers BOTH followed the rules of the road and acted appropriately at intersections. This includes not commencing a crossing knowing they don't have time to complete the crossing before an amber or yellow, looking over their shoulders at the possibility of turning vehicles, NOT stopping in the middle of the crosswalk, not RIDING their bicycle in the cross walk etc.
More on this subject: I went out for a walkabout on friday. ABout 10 blocks one way, I noticed that my eyes were constantly moving. Looking at the traffic, people walking towards me, what was going on behind me, and when I approached an intersecton I was looking ahead, left, right, behind, up at the lights, up at the cross lights, down the road to the left, down the road to my right. My eyes were constantly moving. At one point I was crossing a small side street and a big cube van was approaching the corner, I looked the driver right in the eye to make sure he saw me before stepping off the curb.
Maybe this comes from driving a LOT and maybe from driving a motorcycle for years before getting my car licence....
This whole argument is based on the assumption (and a BIG assumption) that jaywalkers are more cautious. I beg to differ. They SHOULD look both ways but more often than not, don't. They SHOUDN'T jaywalk from between two parked cars, but they do. They SHOULDN'T cross from behind large vehicles, but they do. They SHOULD move quickly, but they don't.
This argument is like saying a gun is safer when it is unloaded. But then, it's only a paperweight then, not a gun.
It'd be much safer if pedestrians and drivers BOTH followed the rules of the road and acted appropriately at intersections. This includes not commencing a crossing knowing they don't have time to complete the crossing before an amber or yellow, looking over their shoulders at the possibility of turning vehicles, NOT stopping in the middle of the crosswalk, not RIDING their bicycle in the cross walk etc.
More on this subject: I went out for a walkabout on friday. ABout 10 blocks one way, I noticed that my eyes were constantly moving. Looking at the traffic, people walking towards me, what was going on behind me, and when I approached an intersecton I was looking ahead, left, right, behind, up at the lights, up at the cross lights, down the road to the left, down the road to my right. My eyes were constantly moving. At one point I was crossing a small side street and a big cube van was approaching the corner, I looked the driver right in the eye to make sure he saw me before stepping off the curb.
Maybe this comes from driving a LOT and maybe from driving a motorcycle for years before getting my car licence....
That isn't geared towards cars, that might be because it is a short turn light interval and unless you start crossing right away, you may not have time to cross completely before the light changes. Just remember: that countdown applies to cars too. It's not like cars get an extra 30 seconds after the zero...the lights change for them do...DOH
Well, I can't tell you how many times I've watched someone with tunnel vision step in front of a moving vehicle. Same applies for crossing against the red too. Not that it means anything but I've noticed that...ahem asians ahem....are more guilty of this than other nationalities. I've seen a group of pedestrians stop at an amber, and an asian truck on through on the red while everyone is standing there. Luckily I saw her coming otherwise she would have been a hood ornament. When I blew the horn she just looked up and kept on walking out in front of me......
Citation?
Your statement is a little misleading. You are REQUIRED to stop if you are a safe stopping distance from the crosswalk when it lights up. As with a light turning yellow you do not have to slam on the brakes if you are not a safe stopping distance away. You can't, however, just breeze through a crosswalk and say you felt it was unsafe. Beyond a certain distance from the crosswalk you'll get charged.
It would be much safer if car speeds were reduced in pedestrian areas.
His point is that the light interval does not allow enough time for pedestrians to cross, especially if they're older / slower moving. A great example of this is University Ave. at Queen street, you practically have to sprint to make it all the way across on one light. That light should be extended in the east/west direction to allow pedestrians additional time to get across the road.
Huh? Was shown to be wrong? Where? At lower speeds everyone has more time to react, both the pedestrian and the car driver, regardless of who was not paying attention or who was in the wrong, there's more time to correct errors and avoid a collision. Moreover while a car travelling at 30km can still do a lot of damage it's a simple matter of physics that it does less damage than a car travelling at 50km.
While I can't dig up stats either for or against jaywalking versus intersections there ARE statistics that show that there are fewer pedestrian deaths in areas where speeds are lower.
If you go back a little further than that, to the early days of automobiles, pedestrians had the right of way in every case, and were entitled to walk down the middle of the street. Cars were stuck driving slowly along behind the pedestrians unless the pedestrians were kind enough to move out of the way. City streets were for people.
We erred in changing that.
As a result of the error drivers now have a mistaken impression that they are more entitled to the road than pedestrians are, and that there should be sections of the street that are off limits to people on foot.
How fast are the vehicles going at the intersections, slower much slower, but people are getting hit any ways. It's not a function of speed that the problem it's being half brain dead/asleep when crossing streets. in the middle of the block the vehicle tends to be going the speed limit or more. Even cutting the speed by 1/3 won't change the physics much between a 3000+ lb vehicle and a human. The person will still loose.
If a driver has that sense of entitlement,as you say, which I doubt, the he should be removed from the road. It's more a case of irresponsibility.
The difference in reaction time available between 30 and 50 kph is minimal for most adults, approximately .16 sec and the human body needs .13 sec just to 'reflex' a synaptic response. It won't make a difference.
When were city street for people? City street were for traffic of all kinds and the occasional bucket of piss. Garde L'eau!!!!
In fact you have 66% more time to react at 30 than at 50 and twice as long as at 60. So are you in favour of raising speed limits in school zones?
Sure, but there was no right of way for motor vehicles, all traffic was equal on the road until such things as the HTA were written into law.
Yes, but read my add on. That time difference of 66% amount to 20 metres, 6 car lengths, not far enough. Regular adults can react that fast. They're hit either way
So it sound good, but it won't make a difference.
WHY NOT? YOu said so yourself: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PROCEED IF YOU FEEL IT IS UNSAFE TO DO SO AND CAN STOP IMMEDIATELY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD!!! By the same argument: YOU DO NOT HAVE TO STOP IF YOU FEEL IT IS UNSAFE TO DO SO......
