"Stop for Pedestrians" alive in VA Senate, lost House by 1 vote

wrote:

Last year I was on a car trip in France and was in Marseilles. Traffic
was speeding along at a typical break-neck French pace. At one point I
saw a pedestrain standing on a miniature traffic island sharing space
with a flashing yellow light meant to indicate a crosswalk. Nobody
paid any attention to this guy, and from the general amount of
traffic, I could see this guy was going to be there a long time, so I
stopped. He waved with a smile and jogged across. The motorist behind

On my first visit to Paris, I wanted to see the Arch de Triumph
which is in the center of a rotary with very heavy traffic.

I guess I was much like the guy you describe. Waited a long
time to run across the road and very nearly didn't make it.

Once under the Arch, I noted the underpass that allows pedestrians
to get to it w/o crossing the road.

Moi, le tourist stupide!


SMH

On 13 Feb, 18:06, wrote:
On Feb 13, 10:25 am, Stephen Harding wrote:



I'm all for pedestrian right of way, especially in marked
cross walks, but some of our local pedestrians have gotten
quite aggressive themselves in the walkways.

Too many (Smith girls mostly it seems in downtown Northampton,
MA) are busy on their cell phones and practically lounging in
the walkway. Some stop or slowly saunter across the street,
cars backed up along the main street waiting for some pedestrian
to move along.

It's a crosswalk not a deck or porch! Cross the damn road!!!

I agree. There's no point in anyone being needlessly rude.

Me too. And a lot of people (myself included) sometimes show our
gratitude by doing the "fake jog" that at least shows the driver we
are aware they are inconvenienced.


All the local motorists are quite good about stopping/slowing
for people in downtown cross walks; even the rude sauntering
types.

But it does sometimes put a smile on my face when someone, clearly
from out of town (NY, NJ or CT license plates typically), blow
through the crosswalk sending people scurrying to the side of
the road.

The correct response there is to be appropriately rude in return.
Don't scurry too far to the side of the road. Scurry just far enough
to avoid impact, but be sure to at least kick a door panel as the car
passes. With luck, you'll do some damage.


Slapping the rear fender is safer. That was always my prefered method.

If all pedestrians carried three-foot-long sticks with paint-
scratching spikes at the end, motorists would learn to give
pedestrians three feet of clearance.


Affix bayonets!

I've fantasized about carrying some heavy object like a pad-lockand
"accidentaly" tossing it in the air when I am started by a motorist
inappropriately whizzing past me.

Joseph

On 13 Feb, 21:28, Stephen Harding wrote:
wrote:
Last year I was on a car trip in France and was in Marseilles. Traffic
was speeding along at a typical break-neck French pace. At one point I
saw a pedestrain standing on a miniature traffic island sharing space
with a flashing yellow light meant to indicate a crosswalk. Nobody
paid any attention to this guy, and from the general amount of
traffic, I could see this guy was going to be there a long time, so I
stopped. He waved with a smile and jogged across. The motorist behind

On my first visit to Paris, I wanted to see the Arch de Triumph
which is in the center of a rotary with very heavy traffic.

I guess I was much like the guy you describe. Waited a long
time to run across the road and very nearly didn't make it.

Once under the Arch, I noted the underpass that allows pedestrians
to get to it w/o crossing the road.

Moi, le tourist stupide!

SMH

Imagine the carnage if somebody had stopped!

Joseph

aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Feb 12, 10:56 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
aka Frank Krygowski wrote:

Friends in Zurich, Switzerland told us a similar law had gone into
effect. IIRC, the gist of the law was that if a driver hit a
pedestrian, it was legally the driver's fault, period. Our friends
said it absolutely transformed the experience of walking in the city,
for the better.
Including pedestrians jumping off overpasses into traffic? Pedestrians
popping up out of manholes into traffic? Pedestrians crouching to hide
in front of parked vehicles jumping into traffic.

They didn't give me the text of the law to read, so I can't tell you.
(And if they did, it would be in a language I can't read anyway.)

Some immoral people do choose methods of suicide that involve others
involuntarily.

Oh, come on, Tom. In the US, 5000 pedestrians are killed by cars
every year. How many of those do you _really_ think are suicides?

More than zero (0). One (1) is the number required to make an absolute
law immoral.

Show me a "zero tolerance" rule, and I will find a case where its
application is immoral.

sigh Well, again, I was relaying a ten-second verbal description of
the law, which is written in a different language. It my not have
been 100% literally absolutely "zero tolerance." However, in their
eyes, the law absolutely worked.

In fact, I doubt there is any such thing as a true zero tolerance law,
at least in America. Even if laws are written that way, influences
like police judgment, prosecutor judgment, jury sympathy, etc. often
come into play.

Frank fails to mention the wealth and celebrity of the defendant.

IOW, there are no real absolutes. Exceptions are the rule, including
exceptions to your sentence just above.

Oh, except for this: If someone states on Usenet a fact that is true
99.9999% of the time, there WILL be a post strongly objecting, on the
basis of the remaining 0.0001%. That NEVER fails. ;-)

We pedants are correct.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:47:43 -0800, wrote:

On Feb 12, 7:51 pm, Matt O'Toole wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:21:03 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 12, 4:05 pm, Matt O'Toole wrote:
This is a close one folks! If we can get just one more
Republican vote, we can pass this legislation, requiring Virginia
motorists to *stop* for pedestrians in crosswalks.

HB1270 was defeated by *one vote* in the House this week, but the
identical bill from the Senate, HB644, is still alive. For some
reason we can't figure out, this was a party line vote, with a few
freshman Republicans breaking ranks to vote "for." If we can get
just one more Republican vote we can do this.

On the VBF website I've posted
[http://www.vabike.org/hb1270-defeated]the latest news from our
lobbyist Bud Vye. He's listed the Republican delegates we should be
contacting. If you live in one of these districts, please contact
your delegate, and urge others to do the same -- especially if they
can speak on behalf of a group, such as a bike club, runners' club,
downtown merchants' association, PTA, senior citizens' group,
church, boy/girl scouts, etc.

Just *one* more vote!

Don't forget yours either today -- Election Day!

Matt O.

I'm dumbfounded that VA motorists currently do not have to stop for
pedestrians in crosswalks. Bogus!

Then again, I can see the other side. Some POS wants the insurance
check and dives in front of your car on a 45MPH road at the last
second, you can't avoid him, and you're screwed. Tough cookie. In a
perfect world the motorist would have to stop, but there would be
wording to get around the pedestrian version of the swoop & squat.

This doesn't change that. When people do that it's only to public
transit busses, claiming the driver didn't make sure all was clear
before pulling out -- nothing to do with crosswalks.

Perhaps in your experience. However, I have a friend who had this
happen to him in Baltimore. He was driving home late at night, coming
around a 90 degree turn at about 5mph when a gentleman in all black
leapt from behind a truck in front of his car, rolling himself
dramatically onto the hood. They exchanged info before the guy strolled
away and the guy told Jimmy the next day "I don't know man, you hit me
in a crosswalk, and now my back hurts. The old lady wants me to go to
the hospital and **** but I'm thinking I could forget about it for five
hundred bucks".

This is not my experience talking but that of a close friend, an
attorney, who defended the LA MTA against such suits for years. So I know
what goes on in the real world, and about how much of each thing.

Quit holding up these freak cases as examples of what goes on every day.
The real story is schoolchildren and little old ladies being run over by
impatient motorists.

A complete at-fault is not fair to drivers, because they'd have to slow
to 5mph and ride the brakes through every crosswalk, lest some fool come
sprinting from between obstructions at full speed into the green-lighted
straight lane of intersection. It should be a safe assumption that if
you have a green light and the crossing pedestrian has a "do not walk"
light, they will wait for a break in traffic or a "walk" light, which
will coincide with a red light for through traffic.

Nonsense. "Stop for pedestrians in crosswalks" works very well for the
rest of the civilized world. You sound like just another impatient
motorist making excuses.

Even here in VA most people are for this legislation, but it's a party
line vote based on something else -- maybe another bill by this one's
patron that the Rs didn't like. That's politics. But constituent
interest can easily sway a delegate from their default party line position.

Matt O.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:09:48 -0800, SMS wrote:

I go non-linear over this issue. It's a continuing problem around
schools in my neighborhood, with the police doing very little
enforcement. They love to issue tickets for California stops
(essentially treating a stop sign as a yield sign) and for speeding, but
for some reason red light running and crosswalk violations are not of
high priority.

If your PTA got active about it they could get some action from the
police. Many towns/cities in CA have police commissions, direct citizen
oversight of the police dept. So you can go to them more directly than
having to work through the council or town manager. Give it a try.

Also, it's simply easier to enforce stop sign violations, because you can
write tickets all day, as fast as you can literally write tickets.

CA does have a "stop" law, which is sometimes very strictly enforced -- to
where you cannot go until the ped has stepped onto the far curb, even on a
6-8 lane arterial with an island in the middle. Wilshire and Westwood
near UCLA is famous for this -- a lot of people used to complain very
loudly about getting tickets there, and try to fight them, but they stuck.

Fines are often higher near schools too -- good for the town coffers.

Matt O.

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:25:46 +0000, Stephen Harding wrote:

wrote:

FWIW, I've gotten fairly militant about this. On several occasions,
I've stopped walking in front of a car trying to barge through a
crosswalk, to assert my ROW.

Yes, there's some risk involved. But damn! Motorists rule too much of
the world as it is!

I agree, and I do the same thing here.

People complain about crosswalk violations all the time here, especially
with so many inexperienced young drivers in town. But there's virtually
zero enforcement. Gauntlet thrown, Town of Blacksburg. Get on it,
dammit. (I know who's probably reading this, and yes, I'm calling you
out.)

I'm all for pedestrian right of way, especially in marked cross walks,
but some of our local pedestrians have gotten quite aggressive
themselves in the walkways.

Good.

One of the nicest things about living in the South is that people are so
polite, but it's to a fault. They don't stick up for themselves, and
allow themselves to get steamrolled -- in this case perhaps literally!

Too many (Smith girls mostly it seems in downtown Northampton, MA) are
busy on their cell phones and practically lounging in the walkway. Some
stop or slowly saunter across the street, cars backed up along the main
street waiting for some pedestrian to move along.

It's a crosswalk not a deck or porch! Cross the damn road!!!

Pedestrians can be as rude as motorists. Perhaps they are the rude
motorists when they hop in their car, concerned only with themselves
whether they are walking or driving.

Yes but rude pedestrians don't have the ability to kill or maim like a
rude driver of a 2-4 ton vehicle does.

All the local motorists are quite good about stopping/slowing for people
in downtown cross walks; even the rude sauntering types.

It's nice that they care about their fellow humans, even the crazies and
weirdos wandering around, along with the bratty Smithies.

But it does sometimes put a smile on my face when someone, clearly from
out of town (NY, NJ or CT license plates typically), blow through the
crosswalk sending people scurrying to the side of the road.

To me Northampton is a model town. My brother has lived in the area for
several years. I visit for a few weeks every year, with my bike of
course.

There's good reason why it continually gets voted onto "best towns" lists.
It's a small town as cosmopolitan as any big city, like a big city
neighborhood transplanted into the country. Neato.

I think the main reason it has preserved its character is that they never
allowed the automobile to take completely over.

Nearby Amherst is a nice place too, but not nearly as nice as Northampton.
The difference is that Amherst is a typical car-town, where pedestrians
can go, while Northampton is a pedestrian town where cars can go -- like a
European city -- the kind of place Americans pay thousands of dollars for
the privilege of visiting, and dream of living in, but don't believe they
can.

I'd probably move there if the climate were more agreeable!

In any case, the rest of the US could learn a lot from Northampton. But a
lot of people won't acknowledge they could learn anything from anyone, or
that anyone else might be doing a better job.

Matt O.

On Feb 13, 10:22 pm, Matt O'Toole wrote:


To me Northampton is a model town. My brother has lived in the area for
several years. I visit for a few weeks every year, with my bike of
course.

There's good reason why it continually gets voted onto "best towns" lists.
It's a small town as cosmopolitan as any big city, like a big city
neighborhood transplanted into the country. Neato.

I think the main reason it has preserved its character is that they never
allowed the automobile to take completely over.

Nearby Amherst is a nice place too, but not nearly as nice as Northampton.
The difference is that Amherst is a typical car-town, where pedestrians
can go, while Northampton is a pedestrian town where cars can go -- like a
European city -- the kind of place Americans pay thousands of dollars for
the privilege of visiting, and dream of living in, but don't believe they
can.

I'd probably move there if the climate were more agreeable!

In any case, the rest of the US could learn a lot from Northampton. But a
lot of people won't acknowledge they could learn anything from anyone, or
that anyone else might be doing a better job.

I assume you're talking about the towns in Massachusetts, right?

So how does Northampton do it? Do you know what makes the
difference? What can be tried elsewhere?

- Frank Krygowski

On Feb 13, 8:23 pm, Matt O'Toole wrote:
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 07:47:43 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 12, 7:51 pm, Matt O'Toole wrote:
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:21:03 -0800, wrote:
On Feb 12, 4:05 pm, Matt O'Toole wrote:
This is a close one folks! If we can get just one more
Republican vote, we can pass this legislation, requiring Virginia
motorists to *stop* for pedestrians in crosswalks.

HB1270 was defeated by *one vote* in the House this week, but the
identical bill from the Senate, HB644, is still alive. For some
reason we can't figure out, this was a party line vote, with a few
freshman Republicans breaking ranks to vote "for." If we can get
just one more Republican vote we can do this.

On the VBF website I've posted
[http://www.vabike.org/hb1270-defeated]the latest news from our
lobbyist Bud Vye. He's listed the Republican delegates we should be
contacting. If you live in one of these districts, please contact
your delegate, and urge others to do the same -- especially if they
can speak on behalf of a group, such as a bike club, runners' club,
downtown merchants' association, PTA, senior citizens' group,
church, boy/girl scouts, etc.

Just *one* more vote!

Don't forget yours either today -- Election Day!

Matt O.

I'm dumbfounded that VA motorists currently do not have to stop for
pedestrians in crosswalks. Bogus!

Then again, I can see the other side. Some POS wants the insurance
check and dives in front of your car on a 45MPH road at the last
second, you can't avoid him, and you're screwed. Tough cookie. In a
perfect world the motorist would have to stop, but there would be
wording to get around the pedestrian version of the swoop & squat.

This doesn't change that. When people do that it's only to public
transit busses, claiming the driver didn't make sure all was clear
before pulling out -- nothing to do with crosswalks.

Perhaps in your experience. However, I have a friend who had this
happen to him in Baltimore. He was driving home late at night, coming
around a 90 degree turn at about 5mph when a gentleman in all black
leapt from behind a truck in front of his car, rolling himself
dramatically onto the hood. They exchanged info before the guy strolled
away and the guy told Jimmy the next day "I don't know man, you hit me
in a crosswalk, and now my back hurts. The old lady wants me to go to
the hospital and **** but I'm thinking I could forget about it for five
hundred bucks".

This is not my experience talking but that of a close friend, an
attorney, who defended the LA MTA against such suits for years. So I know
what goes on in the real world, and about how much of each thing.

So because your friend knows that this happens to people busses, that
means it can't happen to people driving cars? So let's pretend for a
moment that these scammers don't do this to regular motorists. You
say your friend defends the MTA against such suits, so you must be
aware people do pull these scams. The existence of these scams is the
reason a zero tolerance law is a bad idea! Further, if a zero-
tolerance law is in place, the scams will increase because the
scammers will know they automatically win in court no matter how
stupid, irresponsible, reckless or even fraudulent their actions are.


Quit holding up these freak cases as examples of what goes on every day.

These "freak cases" (not freak cases, but rather examples) do go on
every day. That's why your friend has a job - defending the MTA from
these fraudulent incidents. That's why my buddy Jimmy has had it
happen to him.


The real story is schoolchildren and little old ladies being run over by
impatient motorists.

And that's already a very serious crime. Putting an easily abusable
zero-tolerance law in place is an unfair and unjust kneejerk reaction
that will not help the problem.

Do you really think that there are drivers saying to themselves:
"Well, I'm aware of laws against motor-vehicular homicide, attempted
murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. However, I'm really in a
rush and/or feeling impatient so I'll just run over the little old
lady and child in this crosswalk. After all, there isn't a law in
place saying I specifically must stop for anyone in a crosswalk!


A complete at-fault is not fair to drivers, because they'd have to slow
to 5mph and ride the brakes through every crosswalk, lest some fool come
sprinting from between obstructions at full speed into the green-lighted
straight lane of intersection. It should be a safe assumption that if
you have a green light and the crossing pedestrian has a "do not walk"
light, they will wait for a break in traffic or a "walk" light, which
will coincide with a red light for through traffic.

Nonsense. "Stop for pedestrians in crosswalks" works very well for the
rest of the civilized world. You sound like just another impatient
motorist making excuses.

Sure, zero-tolerance laws work out great in the rest of the civilized
world. *roll*


Even here in VA most people are for this legislation, but it's a party
line vote based on something else -- maybe another bill by this one's
patron that the Rs didn't like. That's politics. But constituent
interest can easily sway a delegate from their default party line position.

No chance it's got something to do with some of the politicians not
liking zero-tolerance style laws, or being concerned about abuse,
huh? When did you get a chance to speak with them all about this?

Dan

On 14 Feb, 19:16, " wrote:

Do you really think that there are drivers saying to themselves:
"Well, I'm aware of laws against motor-vehicular homicide, attempted
murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc. However, I'm really in a
rush and/or feeling impatient so I'll just run over the little old
lady and child in this crosswalk. After all, there isn't a law in
place saying I specifically must stop for anyone in a crosswalk!

This is an interesting point. As I noted previously about bikes being
required to dismount at crosswalks in Norway, and some motorists
extreme adherence to that law, some people are amazingly pre-occupied
with who is legally at fault in a given situation, not what is right.

In Norway it is not a custom to shovel snow. So all areas that have
any amount of pedestrian traffic become treacherous lumpy icefields
quickly. When I discuss this with Norwegian people, and tell them that
in the US people shovel the sidewalk, they invariably claim it is only
because they will be sued otherwise. I have not come across ONE who
belives Americans shovel snow because they don't want people to get
hurt. I have asked several of my American friends why they shovel
snow, and they all say, "So an old lady won't break her hip." They
don't say, "So I don't get sued by an old lady who broke her hip."

So around here at least, some people would take a mroe cavalier
attitude to driving and hitting pedestrians were the laws less severe.

Joseph