Drivers should have to stop before turning through a crosswalk with a "WALK" signal active

[CreekDog]

The danger to pedestrians is a turning car with a green light overtaking them from behind as it turns through their crosswalk even though the pedestrian has a walk signal. Understand that there is no practical way for a legally crossing pedestrian to watch for cars behind them while walking in the middle of the crosswalk.

This is just an interim step. Ideally, there should be a red arrow whenever a walk signal is active so that cars aren't going through a walk signal without stopping first.

The biggest danger that I'm trying to address is cars turning through a crosswalk with a walk signal without slowing down enough to stop. By not slowing down enough, they often don't see a pedestrian at all, or they see them, but are going to fast to stop in time. Slowing or stopping cars at this point would help pedestrians protect themselves as well, because they can react to a slow or stopped car, while a fast one will overtake them too quickly.

We had a six year old hit and killed New Year's Eve night in San Francisco by a driver who had a green light, but hit people in the crosswalk anyway. Had it been a red light, the chances that they would have slowed down or stopped would've been greater and may have been enough to have prevented the group from being hit.

[dbackjon]

1. Confused as to what you are saying

The law already states that you have to stop before making a right on red.


If there is a walk signal, then there should not be a green light.

[Capt. Obvious]

2. Not how it works in Boston

Walk light goes on the same time the green light on the cross street goes on.

[PasadenaTrudy]

3. Same in SoCal n/t

[CreekDog]

5. that poster is in Arizona, and they happen there too, poster is just not getting it

[dbackjon]

15. Correct - but the law states to make the right on red, you have to stop first

[Capt. Obvious]

19. They don't have a red light

That's the point of the OP

[CreekDog]

24. he's arguing offline that laws don't need to be changed, cars already have to stop for pedestrians..

lalalalalala i can't hear you, etc. etc.

[CreekDog]

22. it's about making a right on green

let's try reading ok?

(ps-they have this in Arizona)

[MADem]

139. MA state law is that if there's a pedestrian in the crosswalk, you have to stop.

If the pedestrian is jaywalking, the pedestrian needs to yield to the traffic!

There are more particular rules when it comes to crosswalks with signals, but it's a good idea to just check the crosswalk for people before zooming through...

[CreekDog]

141. yes, thank you for being the 100th person to point that out

but the issue is having people stop or slow regardless of whether or not they see someone in the crosswalk.

because people get hit because they aren't seen at all, or until it's too late to avoid a collision. the "walk" signal's safety is only as good as the approaching car with a green light's ability to see the person in time to avoid hitting them.

[MADem]

144. Go slow through the crosswalk, and put your lights on!

You should be able to see people if you take your time.

[CreekDog]

150. thanks for being obtuse

the idea is to protect pedestrians with rules and signaling.

if as many drivers slowed and took their time and carefully looked as follow the signals, we wouldn't need the engineering fix i proposed or some engineering fix at all.

but we do.

this isn't a thread to talk about how drivers can drive more carefully. that time is past. the time has come to do something and not just say, "drive carefully".

[MADem]

168. Well, one way to protect them would be to sentence a bit more harshly.

No more slaps on the wrist if you run down granny.

"Actions have consequences," and all that.

Putting very bright lights near crosswalks might help. Painting the crosswalks in a way that the pedestrian is clearly observed against the pattern might not hurt either.

I suppose you could dig tunnels under the street for pedestrians, but then they'd create opportunities for crime if they weren't brightly lit and camera'd. Overpasses don't work in cramped urban settings, and they tend to discriminate against the handicapped.

You can always make everyone stop when people cross, but that messes up traffic in congested areas.

The loud "blind beep" at the crosswalk tends to slow drivers down if they aren't encapsulated in their ride with the music blaring, but not every place does that.

Other than these notions, perhaps posting signs saying "Be careful crossing here--drivers are assholes, run like hell!" might be the most honest way of dealing with the issue.....

[MissMillie]

214. Actually, I've never seen that

I worked (and walked) in Boston for many years.

I have always gotten my walk signal after the cars get their red light.

[CreekDog]

4. When a car has a green signal and is turning through a crosswalk which has a walk signal

any pedestrian in most cities has seen this.

i don't undertand the confusion.

[CBGLuthier]

6. I think the OP refers to a crosswalk parallel and to the right of the car

People turning right without regard to the pedestrians legally crossing at the same time and in the same initial direction.

[CreekDog]

8. yes, you are correct it's exactly what I'm referring to.

[CreekDog]

7. here, you'll see what I mean:

i know you've seen this before:

[minivan2]

98. Here in California

You can turn right on red, if it doesn't specify.

[donheld]

182. That's not the way it is in Colorado either

the green light comes on at the same time as the Walk sign.

[lumberjack_jeff]

9. Impractical.

For every car traveling north through a controlled intersection, there are also pedestrians traveling north through the adjacent crosswalk.

Forcing every car turning right to stop *at a green light* to wait for nonexistent pedestrians will cause more accidents than it prevents.

If the northbound car's light is red (meaning the e-w traffic has a green light) there shouldn't be anyone in the n-s crosswalk.

[mythology]

59. The solution would be to have both crosswalks active at once

So that there's say a 30 second period where only pedestrians have the right of way going both east-west and north-south (or if you're in Boston east-west, north-south and the two other streets that also intersect) while cars going both east-west and north-south have red lights.

[lumberjack_jeff]

63. So... the red crossing light would say; "DON'T WALK" and the green one; "RUN LIKE HELL!" nt

[CreekDog]

70. No, those types of intersections don't say that. Why would you think so, ignorance?

I don't expect you to know this if you're in a rural area.

I don't expect you to make fun of people who actually are familiar with the topic because you can't fathom what's already in place across the USA.

[Jenoch]

75. I grew up rural, live in the suburbs, and work urban.

I just think that traffuc engineers probably know more than either of us on this topic. I have not made fun of anyone on this thread.

[CreekDog]

142. Traffic engineers have actually implemented the crossing described

so you're dismissing of the idea above (walk signals in every direction) is actually dismissing a traffic engineering fix that is pretty common in urban areas.

don't tell us to ignore an traffic engineering solution on the basis that we should ask traffic engineers when you don't even know the thing you're dissing is the work of traffic engineers.

[U4ikLefty]

177. Traffic engineers probably have analyzed this intersection in the recent past

if it's in an high-volume area.

They may have found improvements like you suggest to be too expensive to implement.

What is the intersection...I'd like to Google Earth it.

[Duckhunter935]

178. try this

https://maps.google.com/maps?num=100&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs&q=Ellis+Street+and+Polk+Street&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x80858096d89c05d5:0xc11845ac6041da1c,Polk+St+%26+Ellis+St,+San+Francisco,+CA+94109&gl=us&ei=F0zGUrq9E6Xu2QWSsIHQBw&ved=0CCsQ8gEwAA

from the article

[U4ikLefty]

180. Thanks. That is definitely a high-volume area.

There is dedicated parking & bicycle lanes along Ellis in both directions. So there is more than adequate sight distance.

There is dedicated parking along Polk in both directions and there seems adequate sight distance.

Also, the crosswalks are striped close to the corners (easier to see pedestrians). It looks okay for an urban intersection.

The combination of high-volume & signalized intersections leads me to think it may be impractical.

This is just a quick look while watching TV mind you. I do this stuff at work, so I don't want to do it while relaxing at home.

[CreekDog]

219. the problem is not specific to that intersection, it's specific to that design

green signals from high speed streets like Van Ness which allow turning through crosswalks (often with a concurrent lit walk signal) is a design problem that is in need of fixing.

there are hundreds of these types of intersections throughout the city, people are hit regularly.

if you're thinking that Van Ness and Ellis needs to be studied to find if it's uniquely dangerous shows your own limitations. the design itself is ubiquitous in this and other cities and pedestrians crossing legally are at risk because cars don't slow enough to see pedestrians until it's too late.

[seattledo]

179. Ugh, traffic engineers

Have you ever heard of one that wasn't biased for cars? They're the reason our roads are so screwed-up and unsafe today. Asking one of them for advice is like asking an MBA for advice. They're the people that got us into this mess in the first place.

[U4ikLefty]

181. What a load of crap. Oh....wait

Last edited Fri Jan 3, 2014, 03:45 AM - Edit history (1)

I get it. that was sarcasm.

Whew, for a minute I thought that was just a horribly ill-informed broad brush.

You got me...nice.

[CreekDog]

183. i agree to some extent, but Jenoch was saying we should listen to them

because they woudn't pick my idea. except that they have or other similar ideas in this thread.

[Jenoch]

189. I never posted anything like that at all.

[CreekDog]

200. yes you did, you were playing a game

and got in over your head.

[Jenoch]

186. From where did you earn your traffic engineering degree

[NYC_SKP]

10. It's already illegal to not yield to pedestrians. They do have to stop.

If there's a person there, they have to stop, and it the light is red, they're already stopped.

When the light turns green, if there's a pedestrian there they can't proceed (though often do).

So there's no new law to create here, we just need to maybe enforce existing ones better.

Also, there's a lesson here for pedestrians: please be careful! There are stupid drivers out there!

Now having lived in Berkeley and New York, and frequently driving to San Francisco, I can share this observation:

Some cities are very pro-pedestrian (and bicycle) and that's good.

What's not so good is when the residents take for granted that all drivers know that they must stop.

Out of towners might be used to the old school (unwritten) rules of the road in many places that cedes more power to the car which, after all, is bigger than the walking person.

So it's common to find people stepping right out in front of a car that's coming, causing the car to suddenly brake.

I see this more in Berkeley than in any other city.

[CreekDog]

14. *If* they see the pedestrian. What if they don't?

Just make it so cars get a red signal or have to stop when turning through a crosswalk that has an active walk signal.

Simple solution. Slow or stop cars EVERY TIME they cross an crosswalk with a walk signal. Very simple.

[NYC_SKP]

17. Do you mean like a "stop and then proceed" rule for cars going through a green?

I guess that would work.

What would be more likely to work would be to create a third session for pedestrians going in any direction, in addition to the N-S and E-W car traffic.

I've seen that done in many cities, all walk signs lit up at once.

But then pedestrians have to stay still when signs say "don't walk".

[CreekDog]

20. there are 2 possibilities there, so yes, a stop and proceed law would be a start

2 options:

1) intersections signaled typically, would get a "stop and proceed" law and/or such a law would be accompanied by a red arrow signal lighting when the walk signal is active.

2) intersections could be signaled to have pedestrian crossing in all directions at the same time and that would mean that cars could cross and turn exclusively too. this is actually more efficient than it sounds. currently there are 2 cycles of walk signals, and cars must compete with pedestrians to turn, backing up traffic going straight. the "all walk" intersections would have only one cycle and it could be just a little longer than one cycle in a conventional intersection (because people can cross diagonally).

both solutions are good ones. the second solution is rarely done, probably due to money and engineering changes. the first is a way to increase safety where intersections haven't been modernized.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

41. Not to start an argument, but there are lots of stupid pedestrians, cyclists as we'll.

My two favorites are the jogger-pedestrian that doesn't have to think before running out into the street; never slowing down.

The other is the either oblivious or asinine cyclist that runs red lights and crosswalks: endangering themselves and others.


But yes the motorists that don't stop for pedestrians are more dangerous: pound for pound.

[NYC_SKP]

44. You won't get an argument out of me over those statements.

Unlike many pedestrians, I do two things:

I look twice in each direction and then let any cars coming pass, I'll even turn around and walk the other way so that they won't stop.

More importantly, I NEVER walk out with the sort of timing that will make a car brake or stop.

I'm not in that big a hurry and I figure it's the more environmentally sound thing to do.

Cars having to stop is a waste of fossil fuel momentum.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

46. I had the jogger type run out in front of me at dusk yesterday.

I'm a reasonable driver, and really get annoyed at the bad habits of other motorists, but some soft bodied people believe that they are invincible against fast moving objects.

[CreekDog]

73. anti environmentalist: "Cars having to stop is a waste of fossil fuel momentum."

that's total BS.

[NYC_SKP]

76. No, it's true. It's science.

As the car brakes, it loses momentum.

In braking, it's turning motion into heat, a waste.

Then, it has to burn more fuel to accelerate up to it's original speed.

I make the mistake, sometimes, of thinking everyone understands physics and science when a lot of people just don't.

[CreekDog]

78. yes, but if it makes walking less safe, how much fuel does that cost us?

also, the intersections with all walk signaling don't slow cars at all, in fact, cars aren't having to stop for pedestrians when their light is green.

and don't mistake your thinking for "understanding physics". the reason the problem is so clear in your mind is that you've eliminated any consideration in engineering or further regulation to protect pedestrians. you've decided anything involving further stopping or slowing wastes fuel and thus eliminated any further engineering or designing for pedestrian safety.

in fact, your knowledge of physics is so limited that you don't know what an junior urban or traffic planner knows on the topic.

but you're convinced that you're expert.

you dont even realize that what i'm saying are not unconventional recommendations. you're the dinosaur on this topic, not me.

[NYC_SKP]

80. There are those who constantly look to the next technological or legislative fix...

...and others who hope that people can just use common sense and slow or stop for pedestrians without a costly and complicated signalling system.

It reminds me of people who think that safe gun technology will save us.

No, it won't. Gun safety classes would have a much bigger impact.

[CreekDog]

81. so you're saying that 4th St. and Folsom in SF is too costly and complicated to exist?

there is an existing signaling system there, it's not the only one in the city.

what was too costly about it? what was too complex about it?

please tell us you obviously *think* you know something that you obviously don't know.

but do go ahead and wow us with your self professed knowledge.

[CreekDog]

119. of course you won't argue. you want the cars to keep going as fast as possible.

you've decided that nothing needs to be done to protect pedestrians beyond the existing laws.

you've even said that signaling and all stop intersections for pedestrian safety are too complex and costly (even though they exist, but you probably don't realize they do).

you're a dinosaur. you are wedded to the 1960's planning philosophy that said we had to keep cars moving as fast as possible to save fuel.

time to join the 21st century.

traffic planning and urban design has come a long way. sadly, you haven't moved with it.

[Skip Intro]

134. And the oscar for drama queen goes to...

[CreekDog]

135. a 6 year old was killed yesterday, everyone chill okay?

[Duckhunter935]

145. sad thing

Do you have a link so we can get more information?

[CreekDog]

148. yes

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Arrests-in-2-S-F-crashes-that-killed-pedestrians-5108718.php

Muzaffar had a green light and was making a right turn from westbound Ellis Street to northbound Polk Street in his Honda SUV when he hit the three in a crosswalk, police said. The girl, Sophia Liu of San Francisco, was killed and her mother and 4-year-old brother were injured.

[Duckhunter935]

156. very sad

I think we should be licensed like they are in most parts of Europe. Very expensive and have to pass a very stringent written and drivers test. There are some very poor drivers out there. Looks like both of the drivers are being charged. Still the pedestrians should also be looking even though it may not have helped in this case. The police in Europe also ticket more often, keeps the people over there following the existing rules.

[CreekDog]

158. those are solutions but people in a crosswalk in the middle of the street

should not have to look behind them.

a family crossing the street?

they didn't do anything wrong.

the guy came up fast, had a green and didn't slow as he rounded the turn.

this is amazingly common.

don't even for a moment put it on the pedestrians.

[Duckhunter935]

163. "don't even for a moment put it on the pedestrians."

who was, the guy seems to have broken existing laws, was arrested and looks to be charged and will have a trial.

[CreekDog]

165. well problem solved then

her life, his imprisonment, right? fair trade no?

oh you were making some sort of point.

anyway, if there had been a red light while they had a crossing signal, he probably would have at least slowed down and that might have been enough.

but you'll take some criminal charges as a fair tradeoff.

oh the bike thread, kinda obvious.

and i'm a driver, by the way.

[Duckhunter935]

174. I have read that link

and nowhere does it mention him not slowing down. As you almost always have to slow down making a turn, I might be wrong but I assume it is a 90 degree turn. What information do you have that he did not slow down?


I guess in your world he should be put in a crosswalk and run over, that would make things right.


And I am also a driver, Ride a motorcycle, and have ridden bikes. Alway drive and ride defensively. Same thing if I am crossing at an intersection, look before crossing.

[pintobean]

136. "you're a dinosaur"

[CreekDog]

146. your last political post at DU, when was it?

how many years ago?

all you do now is post non political posts to our political forums.

[pintobean]

147. You mean, like crosswalk politics?

[CreekDog]

149. advocating for vehicle legislation isn't political?

well, you're rusty. you've forgotten i guess.

[Skip Intro]

152. .

[Skip Intro]

151. Damn dinosaur dirvers!

"Get off the road, you damn Dinosaur!"


Way back then, you see, the idea was to go as fast as possible to save gas...



Classic CD drama with a slight "marcia marcia marcia" element to it this time.

By the way, what the hell is going on with that VW in your pic?

[pintobean]

162. I have no idea.

I saw this post earlier today and did a Google image search for dinosaur car.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024262028#post176

Kinda surprised I had a use for it twice in one day.

[CreekDog]

202. I realize pedestrian fatalities are needless drama to you

real drama is only necessary when you aren't happy with your choices under the Affordable Care Act.

but a kid getting killed?

why the drama?

your rates going up? bring on the drama!

please. look, i'm sorry about the 2012 election, okay?

[CreekDog]

143. well what i've posted above is designed to protect legally crossing pedestrians

people are hit crossing legally and there is a particular vulnerability that i've described above that is very hard for the pedestrian to avoid --almost impossible.

an engineering solution related to signalling or vehicle laws would help when the design is problematic.

[petronius]

11. That's a good idea, especially when they're turning from a dedicated turn lane

Cars turning from a regular lane and having to stop would slow traffic a bit, and might increase rear-enders, but that could be alleviated if the no-turn arrow was only activated when an actual pedestrian pushed the cross button.

For a long time I thought it was illegal (referring to CA) to even enter a marked crosswalk if a pedestrian was off the curb anywhere in the walkway, but perusing the vehicle code recently I can't find it. Don't know where I got the notion...

[CreekDog]

114. yes, i like what you're saying here

also the SJ Mercury News asked CHP and law enforcement about it and some say, no, you can't drive through the crosswalk when a pedestrian is in it, and others said you have to drive through safely when they are present.

a mess.

[kcr]

12. I agree.

Almost every time when I'm turning right and see a pedestrian and stop for them, an asshole behind me honks the horn. Drives me crazy.

[CreekDog]

18. yes, that's another problem.

i'd like to see drivers ticketed for that. it's happened to me as a driver and as a pedestrian.

[Igel]

27. It's the same problem with tailgaters.

They see a car in front of them going slow, and the problem has to be just that slow-moving car. They don't look beyond their immediate problem--the metal object right in front of them--to get a sense of traffic, and can't imagine that somebody might have more information than they have.

[JI7]

13. people should always check to make sure someone isn't crossing and never go so fast

that you are not able to stop. at the very least if you are going slow and still hit someone at least it wont be as bad as it would if you were driving fast.

[CreekDog]

16. the problem is they often don't, so the laws probably need to be updated in this case

also pillars in cars often make it harder to see pedestrians from modern cars. air conditioning and cars heavily soundproofed from the outside further increase the isolation of the driver from their environment. modernization of cars is on balance a good thing, but the isolation probably needs to be dealt with in some respect, this is a simple law proposal and it would work.

[NV Whino]

21. The laws don't need to be changed

Existing laws just need to be enforced. Such as stopping for pedestrians... Whether they are in cross walks or not.

And reintroducing drivers ed in schools would help.

[CreekDog]

23. yes, the laws and/or the signaling and/or the intersection design needs to be changed

they do. pedestrian safety is a problem in cities and outside cities. the laws need to keep up.

laws and regulations have increased safety for motorists, they should do so for pedestrians.

[KT2000]

25. spent a couple years

as a pedestrian and it is frightening. No matter what the laws say - many drivers are so amped up, they regard pedestrian as a nuisance and will try to ace them out.
In a town near here, they supply orange flags that pedestrians can carry across the street and put back into a holder on the other side. I wish all intersections had them.
Another problem is when a car stops for a pedestrian in a crosswalk and the car in the next lane speeds through - hitting the pedestrian.

Maybe some public service announcements to remind people of the laws that do exist and consider pedestrians.

[CreekDog]

26. most drivers don't want a ticket.

that's why the laws for turning should be updated and/or signaling and/or intersection design.

all these can make a difference.

on a green light, drivers may speed, they shouldn't, but they may --i want to reduce the chance that a pedestrian will have the walk signal when a car is less likely to slow down.

on a red, at least the car is likely to stop or slow down at least. even a California stop slows a car to a degree that they may see what they might hit or a give a pedestrian a chance to get out of the way.

but the current, "stop if you see someone" is just not cutting it anymore.

[Egalitarian Thug]

28. The law in every state already gives pedestrians the right of way in a cross walk. So how

is another law that will be redundant, ignored, and unenforceable going to help?

I'm sorry for the kid, but the driver is already at fault, how would this law make him/her any more at fault or make them a better driver?

[Beaverhausen]

29. In California it IS the law that you have to wait for pedestrians to exit the crosswalk even...

...on a green light.

Trust me, pedestrians in California are so used to that that they just go without regard to whatever idiot driver doesn't know the law.

[CreekDog]

31. I said a law requiring stopping before an active walk signal

not just when pedestrians are visible or present.

please read the OP if you're going to say that you disagree with it.

[Beaverhausen]

34. Ok I get it now but I disagree. It would cause even more traffic delays if you HAD to stop

on any right turn on a green light. Sorry, but if people just followed the law as is, there wouldn't be a problem.

[CreekDog]

36. how fast should cars be rounding the corner than stopping is such a big delay?

how are you going to see anyone at 30mph?

if you need to slow to 5mph to turn in a city, why not require stopping?

[Bluenorthwest]

39. Then why not remove the light and use stop signs?

Required stop at all times is what you are talking about anyway.
I've always been a fan of the method I've seen in other countries where the pedestrians get a turn, all autos are stopped and all walking is permitted in all directions. Adding such a walker's slot to the traffic light cycle solves all of those problems, and lets you cross on the time saving and currently wasted diagonal.

[CreekDog]

49. no, I'm not requiring a stop at all times

i said to require a stop before crossing a crosswalk with an active walk signal.

a green signal accompanied by a don't walk wouldn't require a stop, just slowing to proceed safely.

the idea is to give pedestrians a walk signal that truly does keep cars from entering the crosswalk without stopping.

[CreekDog]

154. Actually I've advocated for the all walk setup you refer to here

i think that's an ideal solution, actually better than what I propose in my OP.

but because that requires more engineering and more resources to implement and this is a current problem, i'm suggesting an interim alternative approach where the all-walk hasn't been implemented or can't be implemented yet.

here is one of my threads advocating what you referred to by the way: (it's at the bottom of that OP)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022585095

[Straw Man]

194. How fast?

Last edited Fri Jan 3, 2014, 07:01 AM - Edit history (1)

how fast should cars be rounding the corner than stopping is such a big delay?

how are you going to see anyone at 30mph?

if you need to slow to 5mph to turn in a city, why not require stopping?

Thirty mph is very fast to be taking a corner in an urban area. In many congested areas, the speed limit is 25. A right-angle turn at 30 is a tire-screeching event: reckless behavior any way you look at it.

On the other hand, there is a big time differential between taking a turn at 5 mph and stopping for the turn. Think of the cumulative effect of a block-long line of cars each stopping for the turn rather than proceeding slowly through it. It's a traffic flow problem, especially when we may be talking about many intersections with a "walk" signal but no pedestrians.

I have seen such intersections with signs advising "Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalk." A flashing electronic sign to that effect would go a long way toward making the intersection safe for pedestrians but keeping the traffic flow moving.

[hobbit709]

32. Or without looking while they're on their phone and walking into traffic.

[CreekDog]

83. the 6 year old hit with her family while having a walk signal wasn't on her phone

her whole family was hit and she was killed.

i don't think she was on her phone or texting.

if you'd like to say that's how all fatalities happen, then you have to deal with her death to make that case.

maybe you spoke too quickly.

[Gormy Cuss]

128. No it isn't. The law says you must yield. It doesn't say that you have to wait for them to exit.

It merely states that you must yield and take other necessary precautions to avoid hitting them.

Right-of-Way at Crosswalks

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) This section does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian may suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian may unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

(c) The driver of a vehicle approaching a pedestrian within any marked or unmarked crosswalk shall exercise all due care and shall reduce the speed of the vehicle or take any other action relating to the operation of the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.

(d) Subdivision (b) does 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.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21950.htm

New Jersey recently changed it law to state explicitly that drivers must stop for pedestrians in crosswalks.

Twenty percent of NJ's traffic fatalities were pedestrians. That's part of what prompted the change. In CA pedestrians are about 19 % of traffic fatalities.

[Beaverhausen]

130. Doesn't paragraph (a) say that if pedestrians are within the crosswalk the driver must yield?

I read it to mean that you have to wait until they are out of the crosswalk. I've not always done that however. But people have told me that is the law.

[Gormy Cuss]

132. Yield. Note that it doesn't say stop, nor wait until they're out of the crosswalk.

In CA the driver may exercise judgment on when it's safe to proceed even if the pedestrian is still in the process of crossing, just no longer in the lane where the driver wants to be.

As noted above, NJ added language on stopping to clarify the law. In other states the law specifies that pedestrians must be clear of the driver's intended lane and the two adjacent to it which for a two lane roads means you are required to stay at a full stop until the pedestrian is out of the crosswalk.

Now good drivers have enough sense to avoid entering crosswalks when pedestrians are in them, but the law here doesn't specifically state that. I read a long article about this a few years back but can't put my hands on it now.

[hobbit709]

30. And pedestrians should stop if the Don't Walk light is lit.

In TX if the pedestrian is in the crosswalk you have to stop even if you have the light.

[CreekDog]

35. i want drivers to stop even if they don't see a pedestrian

is this so hard to understand?

all these people that can't see what i've written don't think there needs to be a law that people should stop before crossing a crosswalk even if they *don't* see a pedestrian.

it would be safer.

the case i mentioned where the little girl was killed --they had a green signal to walk and were in a crosswalk. they were hit by a turning car. i assume he didn't see them. everyone would've been better off had he been required to stop before turning. just stopping, for a moment and that little girl would probably be alive. might even have worked if he had just slowed down.

[Jenoch]

33. If your idea were instituted there

would be a lot more rear end collisions on intersections that do not have a dedicated turn lane.

In Minnesota it is illegal to make a turn when there is a pedestrian in the crosswalk.

[CreekDog]

38. so you're saying the laws are sufficient to protect pedestrians because motorists need to stop

HOWEVER, you're also saying that if there were a law requiring drivers to top, drivers would hit cars who have stopped in front of them.

so why have laws requiring people not hit the car in front of them?

[Jenoch]

48. I am suggesting that many roads are not designed for the you are proposing.

It is illegal for a motorist to not yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, at least it is where I live. It is also illegal to rearend another vehicle.

[CreekDog]

50. and what if they don't see the pedestrian?

first, if they had to slow down or stop, they'd more likely see the pedestrian.

second, if they had to slow down or stop, even if they didn't see the pedestrian, slowing would reduce the danger.

they have to slow or stop to round a corner anyway, why not make it safer for the pedestrian?

are you that callous and cold, not to mention, anti environmentalist that you think it's too big an inconvenience to have a law that protects walkers better than currently?

perhaps we could just do it in urban areas. would that be better?

[Jenoch]

51. I've always had to slow down to make a turn at

an intersection. I think the logistics might make your quest quite difficult. There are many intersections without any traffic signs at all, what do you propose for them?

"anti environmentalist"???

[CreekDog]

57. It helps if you read my OP before complaining that something I *didn't say* is unworkable

are you having some sort of problem?

Drivers should have to stop before turning through a crosswalk with a "WALK" signal active

The danger to pedestrians is a turning car with a green light overtaking them from behind as it turns through their crosswalk even though the pedestrian has a walk signal

this was in the first two sentences of my OP. and you're saying my solution is difficult for intersections without traffic signs.

READ THE POST.

my post talked about intersections with active walk signals and traffic lights.

why the heck are you talking about my idea, which I stated was for intersections with walk signals and traffic lights --why are you asking me why I'm proposing them for non signaled/non signed intersections.

i'm not!

why are you arguing over some proposal i didn't make? READ. you can do this.

[Jenoch]

61. Don't you believe that pedestrians at uncontrolled intersections

should be protected from being hit by cars too?

I think these sorts of things should be left to the travel engineers.

[CreekDog]

67. i think you're in over your head

first you think that my OP was about uncontrolled intersections, when it was written in black and white, even front loaded for you to read that it wasn't about uncontrolled intersections.

and now you're upset that my proposal doesn't deal with uncontrolled intersections --even though before you were upset that you thought it did.

and now you're saying that we shouldn't say anything about the topic unless we are engineers, even though you were happy to say lots of things about the topic because you had so much time available thanks to not bothering to read what you were criticizing.

[Vattel]

37. awesome idea!!!! I totally agree.

[GeorgeGist]

40. In drivers ed 50 years ago ...

I was taught to ALWAYS yield to pedestrians in crosswalk.

[CreekDog]

68. and what if you don't see the pedestrians

if you're coming up from behind, if they are stepping off the curb and don't see that you have a turn signal on, etc.?

what then?

that's the weakness here. it assumes you see them.

and a pedestrian should be able to walk on a walk signal without looking, but because drivers don't see them, they can't.

[Jenoch]

93. A pedestrian should NEVERE step into a crosswalk without checking for traffic!

Were you not taught to "look both ways" before crossing a street. Just as drivers should always drive defensively, so should pedestrians.

[CreekDog]

100. what if you're in the middle of the intersection?

cars come up faster than i can cross an intersection then what?

do you just not give a shit?

that's really what this is coming down to. this is all a huge issue to you if it requires anything more of a driver or traffic engineering to deal with.

[Jenoch]

126. I understand the point you wish to make.

but if the semiphores are reprogrammed to do everything you are attempting, then the cycle at busy intersections will be about 12 minutes.

[CreekDog]

157. no, it wouldn't.

various forms of the signaling are in place in many cities.

i'm across the street from one intersection with a form of that signaling right now.

it works pretty well. i feel safer as a pedestrian walking through it and less anxious as a driver driving through it as well.

it works.

you clearly don't know such things are in operation in many places, even as you're dismissing them as impossible.

what gives? how many times are you going to claim something widely used is impossible?

at what point do we conclude that you know a lot less than you think you do?

[Jenoch]

187. I would very much appreciate a link

to websires with information to support your claims.

[FatBuddy]

196. you assume there are pedestrians are in the crosswalk

and use the requisite care and judgment necessary for the safe operation of a motor vehicle.

[ananda]

42. OK, I thought the law always gives right of way to pedestrians.

So the driver of the car was at fault.

[CreekDog]

85. yes, but what if intersection design was a problem

what you're saying requires drivers to see the pedestrians and be traveling slow enough to react properly.

it's clear that isn't always the case.

normally, when a law and design isn't working as well as it should, designs and laws are updated to respond.

why is that so hard to fathom here?

everybody thinks they will have to slow down --they won't, but even the thought has made them oppose this idea out of hand.

[Jenoch]

96. "...everybody thinks they will have to slow down --they won't,..."

How will they be able to stop without slowing down?

[CreekDog]

99. because a green signal could be accompanied by a "don't walk signal"

currently, a green signal can be accompanied by a "walk signal" so the driver has to slow down or stop even though they have the green.

but the signals can be altered so that when you have a green, the don't walk signal is on and when you have the red, the walk signal is on.

and there are other variations but they can actually help drivers stop less and pedestrians are safer.

see you were just snarking but there's an answer to what you said.

stop playing games.

[Jenoch]

125. If the pedestrian walks on red,

they will not get hit by a turning car (does this mean no more roght turns on red, ever?) but they might get creamed by a car going straight through the intersection on the crossing street.

[geardaddy]

43. They recently retimed the lights

in our neighborhood to start the "Walk" signal before the light turns red, to give the peds a head start.

[CreekDog]

117. yes that is an improvement, it gives pedestrians more visibility

they have done that in many places in San Francisco. it's not the only solution but it's a good step.

thanks.

[Make7]

45. Some heavy pedestrian traffic areas have all red lights for vehicles to allow pedestrians to cross.

When vehicles are allowed through the intersection, no pedestrian walk signals are active and when pedestrians are allowed to cross then no vehicles are allowed in the intersection.

At many intersections with traffic signals, this would only involve programming the traffic lights and walk signals to be exclusive. Perhaps also putting up signs to alert people to how the intersection signals function.

[CreekDog]

82. Yes, to me that's the best solution, the OP is an alternative where the all-red isn't done

the irony is that you and I and others are familiar with this system, but some in this thread actually think what you've described is impossible or too costly, or too complex to do.

but we've seen it and know it works in busy intersections.

[madinmaryland]

47. How many pedestrians are injured or killed in these types of accidents.

I have spent a lot of time in NYC and DC and I have heard of very few of these cases. Wouldn't be surprised if it does happen and has been noted upthread pedestrians have the right-of-way.

BTW, I have waited over nine years to use this pic:



From the card game Mille Bornes.

[CreekDog]

55. Here, for NYC:

Pedestrians deaths are up this year across the five boroughs compared with 2012 — and have spiked by 15.5 percent since 2011, The Post has learned.

While the city boasts that overall traffic fatalities are at record lows, a Post analysis found at least 141 people were killed by cars through Monday, compared with 132 over the same period last year.

There were 122 killed through Nov. 25, 2011.

http://nypost.com/2013/11/30/pedestrian-fatalities-on-the-rise-across-city/

[Beaverhausen]

71. it's probably due to pedestrians not paying attention e.g. texting

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2388351/Texting-walking-blamed-nationwide-increase-pedestrian-deaths.html

Regardless of whether or not pedestrians always have right of way, they should look for cars who don't know that law before stepping off the sidewalk. I know I always do.

[CreekDog]

74. how do you know it's probably that?

i posted a scenario showing the inherent dangers of a legal crossing scenario

and you're just dismissing it as if everyone's texting and unwilling to even consider changes to intersection design to protect pedestrians.

you're dismissing it out of hand. you literally think this problem is not a problem, without knowing that.

[Beaverhausen]

77. Did you read my link?

and I can see with my own eyes that many pedestrians DON'T LOOK WHEN CROSSING THE STREET.

If you are on foot you should stop looking at your phone and look for cars before stepping into the street. Period.

I don't think the law needs to be changed, but the law on the books now, at least in CA, that pedestrians always have right of way, should be enforced.

By the way, in New York are people allowed to jaywalk?

[CreekDog]

87. so you're saying that all fatalities are due to texting

[Beaverhausen]

89. I give up

clearly, you are sure that a new law needs to be put in place. You just go on believing that.

I will go on thinking that the existing laws are enough as long as drivers and pedestrians use the brains that they were born with.

[madinmaryland]

72. That is overall traffic pedestrian fatalities. To ask once again, how many

were killed or injured by the right turns on green that you commented on.

To add: The 122 killed in accidents is 122 too many.

[CreekDog]

140. why do i need to know how many?

is it not a problem that people come around corners too fast, not slowing down enough or stopping when approaching turns because they have the green light and don't see pedestrians?

do you really think pedestrians who are in a crosswalk with the walk signal but with a green signal for turning traffic are so safe?

[kiva]

84. Also from the same article:

The city Department of Transportation noted in a recent report that overall traffic deaths — which include drivers, passengers and bikers — have dropped to the lowest levels ever in the city. Police on Tuesday also hailed the drops.

“This administration never accepted pedestrian deaths as inevitable and implemented numerous safety measures — aggressive enforcement, speed cameras, pedestrian plazas and lower speed limits — to reduce them,” said Kamran Mumtaz, a spokesman for Mayor Bloomberg.

“These measures succeeded in helping save more than 1,000 lives over the last decade. While one death is one too many, under Mayor Boomberg the streets of New York City are safer than they have ever been.”[/div class]

There seems to have been improvements for bikers as well as motor passengers, so I'm surprised it hasn't helped pedestrians.

[CreekDog]

86. yes, but what about pedestrians

if pedestrian deaths have risen, then there may be something we can do in terms of design, enforcement, and vehicle code to address that.

are you willing to even consider changes in vehicle code and intersection design and/or signalling?

are you even willing to consider such changes?

[kiva]

88. Sorry, I was editing my post to add a line.

I'm supportive of the idea of having a separate light cycle for pedestrians - I grew up in a small city that did that on some of the major streets, and it worked well...they even had a diagonal crosswalk at several intersections.

[CreekDog]

102. thank you. there are just a few of us willing to consider the suggestion here.

i'm sure i've made mistakes in posting, but there's always hostility when i post the idea. mostly just dismissive of the idea, and often ignorance that the solution you spoke of actually exists and works.

[madinmaryland]

129. I DID NOT IMPLY THAT PEOPLE WALKING WERE TEXTING OR NOT PAYING ATTENTION!!!!!!

[pintobean]

52. You seem to be a bit obsessed

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022781778

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022841783

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022585095

[pangaia]

62. I would say so.

This is one of the silliest threads I have ever seen.
Ya wanna meet at the nearest pub for a couple of drinks?

[CreekDog]

105. i really didn't realize that 4 OPs on pedestrian safety in 10 months was excessive

pedestrian safety is silly.

i should post more like you, like on Auburn or something. that wouldn't be silly. but pedestrian safety --SILLY!

[CreekDog]

95. so you're saying that 2 posts in May, 1 post in March and now constitutes obsession?

which is greater, the number of my OP's on pedestrian safety in the past year.

or the number of alerts you've sent to get GD threads locked in the past month?

which is greater?

then we can talk about what constitutes obsession.

[pintobean]

107. And now this one. Yes.

[CreekDog]

108. why don't you ask Skinner whether or not I'm obsessed with this topic

maybe you can ask him if I should be more like you, and instead of 4 OP's on pedestrian safety in a year, i could make dozens of alerts to lock gun threads in GD in a month.

you know, like a healthier poster, such as yourself does.

do you want to ask him? i respect him and i will consider his answer. will you ask him?

[pintobean]

109. That's just weird, dude.

[CreekDog]

112. well you trying to get the RIP Claire post locked was weird

DUers started a thread about the girl killed in the shooting in Colorado.

and you wanted it locked. and tried to get it locked.

you brought up the subject of "obsession". let's talk about that.

[pintobean]

123. It was a press release from a gun control group

But, you know that. Here's the full text of the body of that post.

In honor of Claire’s life, cut short by a shooting that was avoidable and senseless, and all of the victims of gun violence in our country, American mothers will continue to fight for gun reform until Congress and our state legislatures enact real, meaningful solutions.

How many more innocent children must we lose to gun violence so the NRA and it’s corporate masters, the gun manufactures, can make billions of dollars in profits? Claire Davis fought for 8 days to live after taking a shotgun blast to her head by a crazed fellow student. When will WE THE PEOPLE start to fight so her murder will not be in vain?

http://theobamacrat.com/2013/12/21/moms-demand-action-statement-shooting-death-of-colorado-high-school-student-claire-davis/

Once again...

Moms Demand Action Statement: Shooting Death Of Colorado High School Student Claire Davis

~ Will someone listen? Will they ever hear?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024212908

The gun exception had been stopped by admin. The SOP of GD says no posts about guns unless there is really big news. I take that to mean both sides of the argument. I wasn't alone in being sick of all the gun threads.

All an SOP alert does is send a notice to the hosts. It's their job to decide if a post gets locked, and if it does, there's no penalty to the poster. You know that, too. So stop trying to act like sending an SOP alert is a horrible thing to do. You're a host, you know how it works.

[CreekDog]

153. and you wanted that post chewed up in the gungeon

we know.

you alert the gun posts in GD regularly.

[pintobean]

159. Um... there's more than one gun group.

But, you know that.

[CreekDog]

160. do you want a medal for not alerting on the other thread for Claire?

we'll get right on that.

but there was no need to alert on that one. another gungeoner made sure to alert on that one as well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024211045

[pintobean]

164. I'm not a gungeoner

But, you knew that.

Stay classy, CreekDog.

[CreekDog]

167. i didn't call you a gungeoner

but you make their job easier.

[alarimer]

53. Pedestrians also need to pay attention

Rules on drivers do not preclude pedestrians from taking the headphones out of their ears, especially when they are crossing the street.

These days, between blasting music into their ears and looking at their phones, they seem pretty much oblivious to what's going on around them.

[Politicalboi]

54. Here in Ca we have to yield

If they are approaching on a green light you. If they are crossing on the same side as you, you wait till they clear your car, and go. But if they are across the street waiting to cross, and they are approaching you, you MUST stop till they reach the sidewalk. In this picture, what the driver did was wrong. You're supposed to wit till the pedestrian clears the street.

[A HERETIC I AM]

56. There is no need for a new traffic law for this situation.

What is needed is a proper overhaul and standardization of this country's COMPLETELY fucked up drivers education system.

In Germany, the UK and much of Western Europe, getting a drivers license is tantamount to getting a private pilots license in the US.

The vast majority of drivers in this country have really crappy situational awareness skills, non existent lane discipline, and many treat their cars as if they are sitting in a Barcalounger in their living room instead of taking the driving task for what it is - a duty to properly operate a multi-thousand pound vehicle.

I guarantee you that in a matter of seconds, watching from that same spot in the photo, you would see someone driving with their drivers seat reclined so far back that their chin is barely at the windowsill height.

[CreekDog]

90. No, there is a need, because every day I cross streets and with walk signals, cars disobey

they often don't see me, though i'm visible.

the design is effed up, okay?

the design of intersections has turning vehicles get a green light when they are crossing a crosswalk. they have to see the pedestrian to realize they need to stop. it depends on them seeing while looking ahead, at the light, all those things while turning and not missing the pedestrian in the pillar of their car.

simple changes in signalling would do a lot to address this.

most drivers i encounter stop for signal lights. the problem is when they get the green and in a large city, there are lots of distractions and pedestrians aren't seen. now, for example, it's dark, when i cross the street, i'll have a walk signal and drivers will have a green, i depend on them to see me, with my back to them, while they are watching traffic, the light, looking for me, but it's a wide street, etc.

in the dark.

it's a bad design. why the hostility to change? is it because as a driver, you don't want to change anything you do, you just want it on others?

[A HERETIC I AM]

106. It is by no means hostility.

While am not a traffic flow and dynamics expert, I have put about as many miles under my belt as any Du'er out there. I've been operating commercial vehicles for over 25 years total and have been driving since I was 16 - some 38 years ago.

I have never even come close to hitting someone in a crosswalk. Not once.

What you are suggesting can not and does not apply at every intersection everywhere. It is incumbent on the pedestrian to look at and be aware of his/her surroundings, full stop. The fact that you may find it physically difficult to do so, does not negate the fact that as a pedestrian, you HAVE TO WATCH OUT FOR YOURSELF.

What you suggest, if taken to the extreme, would have the potential to limiting green light time to through traffic by another 25 to perhaps 50%, if a red light (or complete stop) to turn right rule applied.

As I said, it comes down to driver education. Teach drivers to be constantly aware in all situations and to be more mindful in the situation you decry, then we might make progress.

Please don't try and drag me into a bullshit "blame the victim" canard. It's a crap argument based on your desire to see to it that traffic laws are modified so you don't have to look over your shoulder when crossing the street.

Want to do away with this situation entirely? Make every intersection a two lane roundabout, like many are in the UK and Europe. But that is obviously impractical as well.

[CreekDog]

110. What good does it do for me to watch when i'm in the middle of the intersection?

i can't look forward and backward at the same time and in the middle of a large street, there's nowhere to go.

THAT'S WHY I'M POSTING.

IT'S NOT ENOUGH.

please stop saying the solution is just to look. that's not a good solution, it's better than nothing but that's all.

[A HERETIC I AM]

118. I never said the solution was to "just look"

In fact, I understand your concern and sympathize with your plight, but the fact is, if we did a better job educating and TRAINING drivers in the first place, you wouldn't have to worry about it.

If you are crossing an intersection where the approaching traffic has a stop sign, you probably rarely give it a thought that the car you noticed 300 yards down the road and coming at you, will not stop.

The vast majority of drivers just simply stop at stop signs. Why? Because they have been trained to do so and recognize the dangers in NOT doing so.

Please tell me you don't think the same is possible in your situation.

It comes down to driver training and education. I say there is no need to modify traffic rules. I do say there needs to be a DRASTIC change in the way we train drivers.

And FWIW there Creekdog, no one expects you to have eyes on the back of your head. But many, many hundreds of millions of humans cross streets every day with no problem.

[pangaia]

58. " Understand that there is no practical way for a legally crossing pedestrian to

watch for cars behind them."

Really?
It's easy.... for a legally or illegally crossing pedestrian.
You just turn your heard and....look.

[CreekDog]

64. so you're saying while walking forward in a crosswalk in the middle of the street

that the pedestrian should be looking the opposite way of the direction they are walking --looking backwards while walking forwards?

really?

is that smart? and for the elderly and disabled, how does that work?

[pangaia]

65. NO. you just turn and check, more than once if you value your life.

How hard is that? Seems easy to me. In fact, I do it all the time...Piece of cake.

[CreekDog]

66. it's hard actually. I do it frequently and I can't see cars behind me without almost turning around

but then i can't see what's coming at me and turning the other way.

so yeah, it's a mess and even when crossing legally, it's a very vulnerable spot for a pedestrian with a walk signal.

but i guess the standard for you and others is that pedestrian deaths are pedestrians fault, heaven forbid we do anything about drivers (which I am a regular driver).

obviously it's the people being hit who are in the wrong...tell us...

[pangaia]

69. I did not say the pedestrians are in the wrong.

From where did you get that idea?
I just said my solution is to look.

[CreekDog]

79. if the problem is that they aren't doing something, then you are saying they are in the wrong

if they get hit.

but ok, let's move past that.

are you willing to entertain anything other than "looking" as a solution?

anything that pertains to driving, intersection design and regulation beyond current vehicle codes?

yes or no?

[kcr]

91. You can turn and check, and then proceed and a car comes whizzing around the corner and hit you.

It's a very dangerous part of crossing at crosswalks with the light. I was sitting on a jury that lasted about two weeks, and every day I had to cross a huge intersection at a light to walk from the parking garage to the courthouse, and every day it felt like a deathwish. It almost seemed safer to jaywalk down the road. At least you could look both ways and see cars coming.

[CreekDog]

92. thank you for posting this. there must be something wrong with me...

that almost everyone in this thread thinks i'm crazy for thinking it's a faulty design that puts pedestrians like you and myself and others in that "deathwish" situation.

it's exactly what motivates me to post on the topic.

[kcr]

94. I know. We can't be the only ones nearly hit by those right turning, pedestrian ignoring maniacs

Who think the light is green so that means they can just barrel through without looking even though there's a cross walk there.

[CreekDog]

97. You know what I think it is?

First, I'm a driver. I drive everyday, so I'm not a car hater by any means.

I think people's gut reaction to this is:

oh crap, that's gonna slow me down when i drive to work, i'll have to stop more and stuff. i already drive safe, why should any laws or signals which affect me be changed, that'll just slow me down?

i think literally, no matter what i say, for most, they just think, anything to help pedestrians will make them drive slower or stop more often.

fail. and they get angry.

[kcr]

101. I think at the very least the light should be red for right turn

when pedestrians have the light, particularly for intersections where the view is blocked from buildings. This was exactly the kind of intersection I was dealing with. I could not see whether cars were coming from behind until they were right there at the intersection because of the buildings downtown. And by that time I'm already crossing. It would make the light a little longer, but it's safer.

[Gormy Cuss]

113. Slowing down traffic vs. cutting pedestrian deaths. Tough call, that one.

We all know that roads are designed for cars -- pedestrians, bicycles etc. just need to get out of the way.
Or so I've read on DU whenever the topic is car-pedestrian or car -bicycle conflicts.

About nineteen percent of CA traffic fatalities are pedestrians.

[CreekDog]

115. 19%, that is astounding. Thank you for the stat Gormy.

I think we can do better and dealing with improved design and laws is reasonable to address deaths.

death is a big deal. i had no idea proposing we actually do something substantial about deaths would be met with such derision.

[pangaia]

190. Maybe if you could accept that someone else just may have a different opinion than you do.

[CreekDog]

220. i do accept contrary opinions, i don't accept them when they are made with BS

[pangaia]

227. BS?

[Egnever]

120. You my friend have mad skills!

Did that take special training?

[NutmegYankee]

60. This has been an urban hazard for years.

It's just as bad with a red light as the driver looks in the opposite direction for traffic before turning. I knew a mother and daughter who were hit that way. They required medical treatment, but recovered fully.

It should be mandatory to train drivers to look to the right BEFORE they turn and not while they are in it.

[liberal N proud]

103. In most states, the Pedestrian has the right of way.

Hit one and find out what happens.

[Turbineguy]

104. Blinker on?

In Florida that means you can run the red light.

[madrchsod]

111. illinois you have to stop at any intersection or crosswalk when a pedestrian is present.

if you hit someone be prepared to go to jail.

[CreekDog]

116. again, it depends on seeing them

i'd rather have the person not hit than have the driver go to jail.

i think design should be addressed. current laws and designs are not adequate. we can do better than saying, "bah, it's good enough..."

[rug]

121. I hope the flamewars get better in 2014.

[Beaverhausen]

131. +10000

and

although you have to admire his tenacity

[madinmaryland]

133. Thread WIN!!!

[NYC_SKP]

122. Just change these intersections into "No Right on Red without Green Arrow"...

Don't allow cars to turn at all when the pedestrians have a Walk light.

This had been done at a number of intersections, though I don't think it happens at every intersection.

However, pedestrians will still jay walk and stuff and get hit by cars, because people aren't perfect and people don't follow rules.

[pnwmom]

124. That's already the law in WA. You aren't supposed to go into the intersection

unless no one is in any part of the crosswalk, even if they're only in the other half of the crosswalk (that you won't be driving through).

[CreekDog]

137. No, that's not the law in Washington. Can you please READ the OP?

even if just the first two sentences?

is that too much to ask?

the idea was to require a stop before driving through a crosswalk with an active WALK signal.

that doesn't require a pedestrian to be present.

if you're going to argue with me, argue with what i said, not what you were too busy to read that i said.

[pnwmom]

127. That doesn't protect pedestrians at an intersection without a walk signal.

Our state law does, since drivers aren't allowed to drive through a crosswalk (marked or not) unless there are no pedestrians anywhere within the crosswalk (even on the other half of the roadway.)

[CreekDog]

138. it addresses a specific problem I wrote about in the OP

it does not make the world safer for pedestrians in all circumstances.

you don't even like my idea, why are you concerned that it doesn't go far enough?

[rickford66]

155. pedestrians, especially teenagers, are idiots

I see them crossing and never looking for cars. Blindly crossing against the lights. When I walk, I'm looking left and right all the time after stepping off the curb. I also am careful crossing driveways and in parking lots. I can't win the contest against a heavy machine while on foot.

[CreekDog]

161. i don't think the 6 year old killed yesterday in San Francisco was an idiot

but thanks for saying that.

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Arrests-in-2-S-F-crashes-that-killed-pedestrians-5108718.php

Muzaffar had a green light and was making a right turn from westbound Ellis Street to northbound Polk Street in his Honda SUV when he hit the three in a crosswalk, police said. The girl, Sophia Liu of San Francisco, was killed and her mother and 4-year-old brother were injured.

[Duckhunter935]

166. Either was 86-year-old Zhen Guang Ng

why all of the attention to her?

[CreekDog]

169. because the article clearly states the family had a green signal

and it just happened.

what got you interested in downplaying pedestrian safety and exaggerating the danger of cyclists?

boredom?

why no post on single payer healthcare or on guaranteed minimum income?

[Duckhunter935]

172. who said I was downplying pedestrian safety?

Are you downplaying bicycle safety? I could say the same thing.

Cars also need to stop at stop signs. One did not and killed the gentleman, not the pedestrians fault either. I guess only turn lanes count when talking about pedestrian safety. Good thing that driver was also charged and will also have to go to trial.

Bicycles should also obey the laws at crosswalks for pedestrian safety.

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Bicyclist-sentenced-for-fatal-S-F-crash-4736312.php

[rickford66]

170. I was relating my experience.

I'm sorry the 6 year old wasn't taught to mistrust all vehicles when crossing the street. No one should ever expect a driver to stop for them. There are plenty of idiot drivers also. You're not supposed to cross the center line when driving, but there are lots of head on collisions. I constantly look at the left front tire of any vehicle approaching me. I've avoided several accidents by being alert. Those cars aren't supposed to cross, but they do.

[CreekDog]

171. you assume there was time for them to react to a vehicle coming

around the corner. a vehicle which likely didn't slow down very much.

sometimes you're in the middle of the street when they come rushing up and start to round the corner, what then?

it's a vulnerability.

you all are superman, magically looking at tire treads of slow moving vehicles, when in reality cars come up fast, with your back to them after you're in the middle of the street with nowhere to go.

oh but you tell us we can avoid them.

no, not always. people get hit, smart people. you aren't a genius because you know this, you are lucky. smart people get hit by cars all the time, it's physics. smart people doing nothing wrong, smart people who looked both ways.

they get hit at times because they're in a vulnerable spot and if the car is going fast enough there's nothing they can do and stepping into the crosswalk, the vehicle was not even appearing to be turning.

[rickford66]

175. Yes, I've been lucky.

I have had to jump out of the way. I have had to swerve off the road to avoid head on collisions. I still believe pedestrians should be more aware while crossing. Most I see don't even look before stepping off the curb. I do Meals On Wheels with a retired policeman. Every time out he almost hits a teenager and he drives very slow and safely. But if you believe it's impossible to avoid getting hit, I guess you shouldn't look left or right and take your chances. You might get lucky. You may trust driver's turn signals also. Most times they're telling you what they just did, not what they intend to do.

[CreekDog]

184. i look every way possible to avoid being hit

but if you think it's not impossible at times to not get hit.

you're dreaming.

a pedestrian on a wide street with a car coming up fast and turning behind them, some have little chance.

and as for the elderly, disabled and children...

the vehicle codes and intersections need to be updated to deal with this problem. that will make it less dangerous for all pedestrians not just the ones like you that can jump out of the way.

[rickford66]

195. I agree

But in the meantime, I'll be ready to jump.

[yewberry]

173. Seems like an awful lot of people are going out of their way to ignore the point.

I live and work in Seattle. There are several terrible intersections within a block of my office, and I have nearly been killed more times than I care to remember.

The worst one I face daily is Denny & Broad westbound, at the corner of Seattle Center. The walk sign is timed with a green light for cars on Broad, and those drivers are generally looking left to see if they can take a right on red until the light turns. When the light turns, they are usually still paying more attention to car traffic than to pedestrian traffic, and move right into the crosswalk without checking for pedestrians. I have no deathwish, so I don't walk until I make eye contact with the right-turning drivers. Most of these drivers don't even see me until they are partly through the intersection and on some occasions I have been unable to cross the street for the ENTIRE WALK SIGNAL.

Super-fun to stand on the corner, trying to safely get into the crosswalk, waving my hands at drivers turning into the intersection. Yes, the law is that drivers must yield to pedestrians, but those drivers are often not looking at the crosswalk before they drive into the intersection. I'm not texting, I'm not lost in my music, I am trying to get across the damned street without getting flattened, and I can't tell you how many oblivious tourists with strollers I've held back at that intersection.

I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that there should be additional traffic controls on drivers to protect pedestrians in urban areas. The simple reality is that many drivers in our cities are not city residents and are not accustomed to the amount of pedestrian traffic that exists in urban areas.

[Duckhunter935]

176. easiest way is to limit

right turn on red at certain intersections. I would not like to add more signals for a driver to look at. You already mentioned several as to being the distraction. I might be wrong but I believe the driver had the green light and was just turning right and failed to yield to the pedestrian.

[CreekDog]

185. way to miss the point

here you are afraid to address the problem by adding a signal that prevents the car from proceeding when the pedestrians have a walk signal.

even after the explanation.

so all the things the poster said, all the information in this thread and you're like, "wow, too much going on, what should we take away --oh i know, the signal that tells the car to wait for pedestrians!".



it's like intentional stupidity.

i guess you can't go waste time in the gun control group, you already got booted from there, so you have to illuminate us in here with similar "wisdom".

hating on the bicyclists too huh? banner day?

[Duckhunter935]

191. Do what ever you want

You seem pretty hung up on it.

I guess the way it must work is pedestrians get their green light and all traffic stops. Cars would then get their green light but must stop before making a turn. We can even have the drivers get out and verify the road is clear before proceeding.

That would make things safer. Ban cars, that would work.

maybe something like this....

Red flag laws were laws in the United Kingdom and the United States enacted in the late 19th century, requiring drivers of early automobiles to take certain safety precautions, including waving a red flag in front of the vehicle as a warning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws

Hating on bicycles? how is obeying the law hating on bicycles. I am looking out for their SAFETY. I think most of the time they are the ones that suffer the worst if the fail to obey the law and get hit by a 2 ton car or truck. I hope you too care about that.

Why bring guns into this, I was blocked from "castle bansalot" for a perceived SOP violation after 3 posts without any warning or appeal. They tend to do that a lot over there. My loss, I miss the great discussion over there, but it is a very slow forum. That is OK they need their "safe haven" Since that is off topic, that is all I will say in answer to your comment

[CreekDog]

197. Look if you want to do to this thread what you do to threads about gun control

mission accomplished.

and you got banned in the gun control group because you couldn't follow the rules.

by the way, i never advocated for banning cars, i drive actually. in this thread i've also advocated for signaling that speeds up intersections while offering better protection for pedestrians too.

[Duckhunter935]

204. Well you brought up the gun control group in this thread, I did not

here is what I said that was so bad to be blocked
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12621180#post53

POST #1 they are already taxed

POST #2 you have no idea of what my nickname is about. Have a good day. Hint, it is not about ducks.

(my username refers to my 20 years as an air defender in the army)

Post #3 Yep, a lot of people here see gun owners that way

post #3 responded to this post.......

The reason I asked was because some folks were talking about a policy for each firearm.

I carry a $1million cover policy on my home and land, $1 million on my business, have all my firearms that are not in use in steel fireproof safes installed in a concrete block room inside my home. I have both a alarm system and a fire suppression system.

However I live 30 miles from town on 40 acres and, depending who is on duty at the time, usually must give directions to LE if they are needed.

Despite all of this to many here I am a dirty, scum sucking future murderer with dreams of shooting small children and cats.

I find this disappointing to say the least, and somewhat discouraging.

That is fine it is a safe haven and the host can do what he wants and blocked many people who they disagree with. Lets look at who likes open discussion and who does not by blocking opposing views.

Gun Control and Activism
Number Blocked members
1 hack89
2 Eleanors38
3 Crepuscular
4 Bay Boy
5 ManiacJoe
6 bossy22
7 Straw Man
8 oneshooter
9 Duckhunter935
10 friendly_iconoclast
11 rrneck
12 customerserviceguy
13 ProgressiveProfessor
14 sarisataka
15 appal_jack
16 Travis_0004
17 geckosfeet
18 Hangingon
19 NYC_SKP
20 Jenoch
21 spin
22 shedevil69taz
23 SoutherDem
24 Ranchemp.
25 Lurks Often

Gun Control & RKBA
Number Blocked members
1 Hoyt
2 rdharma

and by the way, I do not think your idea would speed up intersections, stopping when no pedestrians are around will slow it down

[CreekDog]

205. no, the Gun Control and RKBA group has few members blocked because it's not a safe haven

the Gun Control Reform Group is a safe haven because of how the RKBA'ers, in general, behave on DU.

how many RKBA'ers behave on DU is also why so many have been banned from DU altogether.

[Duckhunter935]

210. how many of those blocked

are also blocked on DU? Kind of a broad brush statement there, huh. Its a good thing the SOP is not as strict as the gun control group. You would be blocked for that statement. Hell, I did not even make such a statement and was blocked. That is OK, that forum is almost never posted to anyway.

Seems to me they are not blocked on DU but only in the safe haven that does not allow for for free discussion. It is funny, the other group (RKBA) welcomes welcomes differing viewpoints and only has two blocked.

Back to your OP, I think the laws are fine as long as cars, bicycles, motorcycles and pedestrians follow the current laws.

[CreekDog]

212. 22 were blocked that were later banned by DU

so that means of the 47 who have been blocked, 22, were later banned. 47% of those blocked by the GCRA group were later banned.

there isn't a group that has a better record of blocking trolls, than the GCRA group. of all those blocked, basically half turn out to be trolls.

1.AnotherMcIntosh
2.Remmah2
3.markeybrown
4.skinnytrees
5.WinniSkipper
6.Peter cotton
7.holdencaufield
8.Trunk Monkey
9.dklo
10.FamilyMan
11.slackmaster
12.CokeMachine
13.DemDealer
14.JohnnyBoots
15.premium
16.supernaut
17.rl6214
18.grok
19.MalcomInTheMiddle
20.ceonupe
21.tumtum
22.wild bird

you were saying?

[Duckhunter935]

215. and 25 current members are blocked?

Are they also trolls or you just do not want differing viewpoints

Way to hijack your own thread

[CreekDog]

217. i don't know which of the 25 currently blocked are trolls

time will tell. many on DU are of the opinion that it has already.

[yewberry]

201. How does this address my post?

You are not wrong in saying that drivers at the intersection I describe have the green light and fail to yield to pedestrians. That is the problem; failing to yield to pedestrians can lead to injury or death on the pedestrians' part.

[U4ikLefty]

192. The OP is insistent upon ONE remedy which may be impractical

from a traffic engineering point of view.

If the intersection has a high number of injuries or accidents, there may be the need for additional traffic control....at that intersection. But to implement the OP's strategy whole scale (in San Francisco) seems impractical.

I agree that safety is of the utmost concern.

[CreekDog]

198. Wrong. I didn't insist on ONE remedy

nope nope. offer your own opinion but don't speak for me unless you can be bothered to get it right.

i don't think you're a bad poster and i agree with you on many things. but i don't feel like it's worth arguing with you when you characterize my posts on this subject, which are many as "ONE REMEDY".

don't characterize people's beliefs if you can't be bothered to read what they've said in the thread. that's fair.

[U4ikLefty]

211. Okay then, name the many remedies you suggested in the OP.

Last edited Fri Jan 3, 2014, 06:03 PM - Edit history (1)

List them please.

I assume you have a clear list of proposed solutionS on hand to solve this problem. I am also sure you have some expertise in the field of traffic/transportation enginering.

Right???

[U4ikLefty]

223. Now you are PM-ing me & talking shit???

Here is the content for everyone to read:

"so now you just want to play games with the argument

first you say i "insist" on only one remedy.

then when i tell you that in fact, i didn't insist on just one remedy, you try to limit the argument to what i said in the OP, which isn't the sum total of what i believe and other posts in the thread describe that.

if you just want to play a game, then obviously you don't actually care about having a fruitful discussion.

go be a lawyer on this elsewhere, it's wasting everybody's time.

i've advocated many solutions to this problem on DU and in this thread and the OP is not limited to one remedy.

go have your fun."

Don't get mad when an engineer (me) asks you for specifics. If you continue with this chicken-shit tactic...you will be put on ignore. I have no time for fools who think they know more than they do.

[CreekDog]

224. don't ask for specifics if you're going to claim i said something i didn't

get your specifics right before giving me a hard time about specifics you couldn't be bothered to read.

why provide you with more specifics when you couldn't be bothered to read what was already posted?

[U4ikLefty]

226. So you've got nothing?

It easy if you're such an expert on this.

Got that list yet? Or are you going to try to argue your way out of this?

[CreekDog]

231. No, I said I'm not going to answer your request until you take back what you said

about insisting on only one solution.

I'm not going to go around and answer all your specific questions when you can't be bothered to quote or even read what I said correctly.

You fix your first error and I'd be glad to respond to your questions with the consideration you've given me.

Since you've misrepresented my posts and my ideas here, largely by not reading what I wrote, I feel answering your question should get the due consideration you gave me.

I should ignore your question.

Unless you want to try again, which I'm totally up for doing.

[U4ikLefty]

233. Poor baby. Now I KNOW you have nothing...lol!!!

If you were not insistent on ONE SOLUTION (cars stop at all "walk" signs), then I could perhaps offer you better advice. But hey, you are the expert...I'm just an engineer with years in this field.

[CreekDog]

237. i have plenty, you just refuse to read it. ho hum.

Again, will you please read? Even in my OP, you act like I'm insistent on just one thing, I'm not, by the third sentence:

This is just an interim step.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1130760

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022781778

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2848216

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4269158

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4266749


if you want to have a discussion about specifics, don't pigeon hole my ideas as "insisting on just one solution" when if you'd simply read my OP and posts, you'd see that i wasn't just insisting on ONE solution, but was open to multiple things. even my "solution" was just a proposal and was seen as an interim step towards better ways of keeping cars and people moving, SEPARATELY.

but for some reason, you couldn't be bothered to make your point without making a straw man of what I actually post on the topic.

if you don't believe you're correct on the facts, argue as you have, make a straw man of my arguments, then the arguments you make, which you believe are inferior, will prevail.

[U4ikLefty]

241. Your OP insisted on ONE SOLUTION = cars stopping at the "walk" signal.

Last edited Fri Jan 3, 2014, 08:31 PM - Edit history (1)

Anyone with eyes can read your "interim" and ultimate solutions in the OP are the same = cars stopping at the "walk" signal.

You keep harping on it because you know that solution is not going to work on a large scale. You also know that arguing with an engineer (me) about engineering will get you owned.

You post the fucking annoying blue links from the past? Give me a break!!!

If you were interested in some real advice, you would ask an engineer (me), but you're too busy with your rant. Enjoy it because I'm done with your ignorance.

[pintobean]

225. Yeah, he does that.

I don't know why those comments couldn't have been posted on the board by him. Good for you for posting them for transparency.

[U4ikLefty]

228. It is frustrating because I am an engineer & I could offer

some actual advise if they would calm down.

I have better things to do than argue over the internetz....ACTUAL design to finish.

[CreekDog]

242. the problem is that you only want to look at one particular intersection at a time

so what's the stats on Van Ness and Ellis? probably not bad.

what are the stats on intersections similar to it? a lot worse.

but you won't look at things that way.

and heaven forbid you are downright hostile to any changes that you even think would slow traffic --even if they wouldn't.

[U4ikLefty]

243. The problem is that I'm dealing with a low-info DUer with a grudge.

Last edited Sat Jan 4, 2014, 01:38 AM - Edit history (1)

I could've offered good advice but your intent is to yell at those who actually KNOW something about traffic issues.

You have offered no real stats, nor any expert analysis. I cannot therefore reach any conclusions as to whether your (or any) solution is feasible.

Sorry you can't keep it together & discuss this rationally.

[yewberry]

203. I am not the OP, and the suggested solution may well be impractical.

How many times should I have to be injured in an intersection before traffic engineers acknowledge that there is a problem?

(Actually, all it would take is for those traffic engineers to try to cross the street on foot at Denny & Broad! )

[U4ikLefty]

213. You assert something that may or may not be true.

Your assertion that it (Denny & Broad) is a dangerous intersection has to be backed up by facts.

Are autos speeding through the intersection? Is the signal timing in need of adjustment? Are there sight distance problems that hinder the driver from seeing the pedestrian? Are there many injuries or near misses at that location?

Before we can find solutions, we need to define the problem.

BTW, I never suggested that you were the OP.

[yewberry]

229. Okaaaay...since you don't want to take my word for it...

Mapquest @ Broad & Denny

Speed is not the problem with this intersection, and signal timing seems to be appropriate. The angle of approach is a problem. A vehicle traveling southwest along Broad approaches Denny at an obtuse angle. If that vehicle stops at the intersection (in a dedicated turn lane), it is far from pedestrians attempting to cross Denny, and drivers are frequently watching approaching cars to the left so they might take the right on red. When the light turns, many are still not fully engaged with what could be happening on the right. Drivers are already partway through the intersection before they have a direct line of sight on pedestrians crossing Denny from north to south.

Also, this road is directly fed from the freeway. If you take the Broad St exit off of I-5, this is where it will go. That round thing at the top of the image is the Space Needle. It is fair to say that there are often many tourists in the area, both behind the wheel and on foot, and they are generally unfamiliar with this intersection and the challenges that exist there. There are many near misses and occasional collisions.

[U4ikLefty]

236. There are a number of issues with that intersection & the surrounding area.

First is the skew of the crossing. It provides bad sight distance for turning autos.

Second, the intersection spacing and access control are horrible.

That is an intersection that can most likely use some additional controls (if shown to be dangerous). I'm sure with the high number of tourist in the area, that the city is well aware of that intersection and it's (possible) issues. I would do some asking around.

Thanks for providing some actual info.

[Niceguy1]

193. I think simply

Enforcing current laws is fine. If you can see that there are no people crossing I see no need to stop on the green

[BobUp]

199. In my neck of the woods,

pedestrians have the right of way on a green, not the vehicle.

The thing I see lacking in the photo is no crosswalk markings. Unless that solid white line defines the crosswalk?

[Duckhunter935]

218. That is the same law

in most places

The photo in the OP does not appear to be the correct intersection. Here is a link and it is properly and clearly marked and seems to have good sight lines as long as there is not a large vehicle in the last metered parking space.

https://maps.google.com/maps?num=100&client=firefox-a&channel=rcs&q=Ellis+Street+and+Polk+Street&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x80858096d89c05d5:0xc11845ac6041da1c,Polk+St+%26+Ellis+St,+San+Francisco,+CA+94109&gl=us&ei=F0zGUrq9E6Xu2QWSsIHQBw&ved=0CCsQ8gEwAA

[BobUp]

246. After reviewing images

for crosswalks, I found that a wide solid white line is definitely a crosswalk marking.

[NCTraveler]

206. No clue how I have made it this long...

without a problem walking or biking through a crosswalk, or driving through an intersection without hitting a walker or biker using a crosswalk.

[Brigid]

208. Could it be . . .

You've been obeying the law -- and paying attention to what you're doing?

[NCTraveler]

209. Yes. That is why.

Probably also has something to do with the area I have spent most my life. I almost felt bad making my post after reading yours just below. After reading your post, it makes me think that the answer isn't for all intersections with lights, just some. I think some areas, as the intersection you describe, should look at some of the crossings of the Pinellas Trail in Pinellas County. The crossing by the Dunedin Causeway has an individual right turn lane with its own independent light. The flow of cars and pedestrians/bikers is managed flawlessly. It is not something that needs to be done at every intersection. The issues with stopping on green when turning right at all crosswalks would be extremely dangerous. I liked your post below. Made me think about my own and how regional this issue can be.

[Brigid]

207. There is a very busy intersection near my home.

I have to deal with it almost every day, because anything I might want to get to, like the bus stop, is on the other side. I HATE that intersection. The walk signals don't work half the time, and drivers turning right almost never yield to pedestrians waiting to cross when the light turns green. If there are cars in the turning lane waiting to turn right, I know I am going to miss my walk signal, and have to wait because cars will not give pedestrians a chance to cross. I have had to wait through as many as three cycles just to get across the damn street. Then I have to do it all over again to get to the other side where the bus stop is. It's like playing "Frogger" for real. Did I mention I hate that intersection?

[CreekDog]

216. it's a problem and as a pedestrian in this city and others, it's increasing

i'm not sure what the explanation is, but drivers not yielding or only yielding after coming perilously close is a huge issue.

i'm glad you told your story.

some folks, many in this thread, are simply against doing anything with the signaling or intersection design because they think they'll have to slow down or stop more often.

for many, that's what it comes down to. screw you if you want to change the rules because other drivers won't yield to you, screw you, many posters here don't even want the mention of anything that they think will slow them down or stop them any more often than is the case now.

i'm sorry to say.

[Duckhunter935]

221. I think is they no longer

teach basic drivers education and basic laws and rules of the road. Another factor is probably it is all about me and I always have the right of way (wrong).

Basic drivers education and some real enforcement of already in place laws will help

Start ticketing and that would help and get some revenue into the city

[CreekDog]

222. again, you're just being argumentative

all you want is enforcement.

just like with guns laws, your reflexive position is that ancient laws are all we need currently, no other changes beyond that are necessary.

aren't you bored of this? don't you have some bicyclists to badmouth in your other thread?

[Duckhunter935]

230. nope, never badmouthed bicyclists

Please post a link to substantiate that charge. If not I will accept your apology

why make new laws and rules if you do not enforce the current ones

I like bicyclists as long as they follow the laws. I like car and truck divers as long as the follow the laws. I like motorcycle riders as long as they follow the laws.

You know if we all did that, these things would not happen.

Why do you keep bringing up guns? Are you obsessed or something?

And I am the one being argumentative? Please feel free to read some of your own responses. I have tried to be very civil and I think I have succeeded.

[CreekDog]

232. ah you're saying i'm obsessed with guns

like a lot of gungeoners say about DUers who support gun control.

[Duckhunter935]

234. you are the one that keeps bringing guns up

in a post that has nothing to do about guns. I have not said one word about guns until YOU brought it up trying make me look bad but that has failed miserably. Yes I will talk about firearms. I do not start a topic in GD but in the one forum dedicated to firearms that allows for open discussion. I know when and where to talk about firearms and a thread on a pedestrian traffic fatality seems to me to be the wrong place.

Yes I would say quite obsessed.

[CreekDog]

235. on the Sandy Hook anniversary you were bringing up guns rather constantly

but i'm the one who is obsessed?

you even were trying to get the discussion of guns moved to another group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4177569

[Duckhunter935]

238. I did not start the thread

At that time guns was off limits in GD, called the OP on it on the original of his three threads titled ----GUNZ-----

that was locked per GD SOP

second thread, same poster -----GUN2-------

Locked per GD SOP

That is the third thread and during that thread Skinner adjusted the exception.

I had another thread running but it was not about guns like the other poster

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024176993

Nice try though, yes tried to get the discussion on guns moved to one of the two appropriate forums as at that time guns threads were not allowed in GD per the SOP.

I am not the one that keeps bring guns up in a topic about traffic safety.

[CreekDog]

239. but my reference to guns makes me obsessed with them

your reference to guns that day, in dozens and dozens of posts, mostly trying to limit the discussion of Newtown --that doesn't reveal an obsession.

this is rich.

while you're at it --SPARE ME.

[Duckhunter935]

240. never tried to limit discussion

you keep bringing them up in a thread you started about traffic laws

[Catherine Vincent]

244. I agree with you

I work downtown and see it all the time. I try and be careful when I get the "Walk" signal and the cars in the far right (and sometimes the middle lane) that have the green light to turn. There are some that stop but a lot of them continue turning (as they are on the flippin phone). I'm always amazed because most of the time they are in such a hurry to turn just to get stopped by a red light.

[CreekDog]

247. to me, the "Walk" signal is misleading to pedestrians when cars have a green

it's all depending on a car going slow enough to stop

and a car slowing enough to see a pedestrian in time to stop

but if they are going too fast, they can't stop

if they are going too fast, they might not see the pedestrian

the pedestrian in the middle of the street is already committed to crossing, looking behind them is unlikely to do them any good if a car is overtaking them from behind --and when they started that car was likely not anywhere near (at least on a wide street).

there's just so many problems.

thank you for sharing your story, i know walkers in large cities experience this, i do myself.

and as a driver downtown, i would like it to be easier for me to make turns safely. in crowded intersections, i don't want to have to wait for spaces between pedestrians, i feel horribly unsafe doing that, but the design forces you to turn in this way.

[Catherine Vincent]

245. Also,

Sometimes I've seen cars stop as they wait for pedestrians to cross in front of them and you have some idiot behind them honking their horn at them. I'm like...you don't see people crossing the street fool?