Likes Likes:  27
Dislikes Dislikes:  1
ELITE ELITE:  1
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 57

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

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    424
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    This statement is not true. For example, in Virginia, it is legal to cross where two roads intersect as long as the road you're crossing has a speed limit of 35 mph or less.

    Has anyone checked AZ law as to whether crossing here was actually illegal? Does the presence of the "path" in the median change anything?
    They have signs on the median directing pedestrians not to cross there but to use the crosswalk down the road, so based on the signage, it probably was illegal. Doesn't change anything about the car's failure to stop or even slow down, and the videos other folks have been posting (see https://twitter.com/bobco85/status/977041677889060864) of what it looks like driving down that road at night without a crappy dash cam are quite damning.

  2. #42
    dasgeh's Avatar
    dasgeh is offline Queen of Family Biking & All Things Kidical
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,327
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post
    I merely noted in my previous post that the pedestrian was in violation for crossing outside a crosswalk (striped or not) - I did not say that exempted the driver from the need to stop.

    So, no, I was not wrong in stating that its technically illegal to cross outside a crosswalk (though I could have been clearer to indicate I was aware of unmarked crosswalks)
    That's just tautology. You define "unmarked crosswalk" as any place that a pedestrian may cross a road that's not a striped crosswalk. So, yes, it is technically illegal to cross outside of a marked or unmarked crosswalk. But that's not helpful, because different states define their "unmarked crosswalks" differently. There are places in Europe where it's not ILLEGAL for pedestrian to cross anywhere. I imagine there are some in the States, too.

    Besides, the articles consistently state that she was crossing outside of a crosswalk, by which they mean marked.

  3. #43
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    2,842
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    This statement is not true. For example, in Virginia, it is legal to cross where two roads intersect as long as the road you're crossing has a speed limit of 35 mph or less.

    Has anyone checked AZ law as to whether crossing here was actually illegal? Does the presence of the "path" in the median change anything?
    http://www.richmond.com/news/local/w...a4bcf6878.html

    Marked crosswalk driver yields, with, or without stop sign
    Unmarked crosswalk, prolongation of lateral lines of the sidewalk driver yields, with, or without stop sign
    Unmarked crosswalk, at an intersection without sidewalks but posted speed is 35 or less driver yields, with, or without stop sign
    Unmarked crosswalk, at an intersection without sidewalks but posted speed is greater than 35 driver does not have to yield


    The presence in the law of unmarked crosswalks does not mean that crossing where there is no crosswalk, marked or unmarked, is legal.

    In Virginia, based on the above, there would be no unmarked crosswalk at the Tempe location (IIUC a midblock crosswalk MUST be marked in Virginia) It is possible the law is different in Arizona, and I may have been too quick to assume their law is the same as ours.

    But I would reiterate, if that is the case, this is horrible infrastructure. To have a legal, completely unmarked crossing over a 45MPH multilane road is murder. By the engineers/lawmakers, not necessarily the driver. I hope no one is advocating for that.

  4. #44
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    2,842
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    That's just tautology. You define "unmarked crosswalk" as any place that a pedestrian may cross a road that's not a striped crosswalk. So, yes, it is technically illegal to cross outside of a marked or unmarked crosswalk. But that's not helpful, because different states define their "unmarked crosswalks" differently. There are places in Europe where it's not ILLEGAL for pedestrian to cross anywhere. I imagine there are some in the States, too.

    Besides, the articles consistently state that she was crossing outside of a crosswalk, by which they mean marked.
    What are we arguing about? I am 99.9% sure she crossed illegally there (unless Arizona either has a law allowing peds to cross anywhere, which I doubt, or considers that an unmarked crosswalk, which I also doubt, esp given the signage). I raised the point that its technically illegal merely to point out that there are some occasions where jaywalking is not particularly imprudent (do you disagree with that?) but that this does not appear to be one of those occasions (do you disagree with that?) I then explained about unmarked crosswalks in response to a quibble about Va code.

    And no its not circular. Its jaywalking to cross outside of a crosswalk. In Virginia and, afaik, elsewhere in the USA. A crosswalk exists in Virginia only where either it is striped, or at an intersection (but not all intersections - not when there is no sidewalk and the road being crossed is posted above 35MPH) If there is any state in the USA where there are implicit, unmarked, midblock crosswalks, I would be interested to learn about them. I think it should be clear why such crosswalks would present particular challenges to even the most attentive, alert, lawful, drivers.

    As for what the articles state, I have not read all of them. I went by looking at google street view, and the video.

  5. #45
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    2,842
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dasgeh View Post
    This statement is not true. For example, in Virginia, it is legal to cross where two roads intersect as long as the road you're crossing has a speed limit of 35 mph or less.

    Has anyone checked AZ law as to whether crossing here was actually illegal? Does the presence of the "path" in the median change anything?
    https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ug...rked-crosswalk

    A crosswalk can be marked or unmarked. An unmarked crosswalk can be found in the elongation of two sidewalks from one side of the street to the other. A pedestrian enjoys the same protections in an unmarked crosswalk as a marked crosswalk.

    Automobile drivers must exercise reasonable care while operating their vehicles, taking note of pedestrians and bicyclist who are crossing the street in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.


    https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...king/16496643/

    According to Arizona law, pedestrians are supposed to cross within marked crosswalks, or at unmarked crosswalks at intersections. An unmarked crosswalk is the location where two roadways intersect but no marked crosswalk is present, for instance in a residential neighborhood.
    Last edited by lordofthemark; 03-23-2018 at 09:23 AM.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Alexandria
    Posts
    748
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post
    A3 defines where a driver must stop for pedestrians, EVEN THOUGH the pedestrian is in violation of the law.
    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[s] 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?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Alexandria
    Posts
    748
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    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.

  8. #48
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    2,842
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by peterw_diy View Post
    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[s] 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.

  9. #49
    Judd's Avatar
    Judd is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Arlington
    Posts
    2,710
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordofthemark View Post

    However IANAL

    Giggle...

  10. #50
    lordofthemark's Avatar
    lordofthemark is offline I really need to log off the internet and go for a ride.
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The forgotten corner of Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    2,842
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Judd View Post
    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

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •