Aethien wrote:
The whole crosswalk-thing has bugged the crap out of me since moving to CA ... crap, almost 20 years ago. I came from the East Coast, where it's much as Mus says - traffic shouldn't stop just because you decide to cross the street. I even coined the term "crosswalk mentality" for it - because it breeds in individuals a sense of entitlement and obliviousness, that they can just go walking across an intersection without taking a nanosecond to look and see if anyone's coming. And, I've seen it happen - they expect cars to stop, so they just blunder out. A friend of mine, visiting from the East Coast, was driving through the UCLA campus (there are a number of roads that go through), and he nearly creamed a few students who stepped out in front of him. He had trouble understanding that (a) they hadn't looked, and (b) assumed he was going to stop. I had to disabuse him of both notions.
I have always had a strong feeling that the crosswalk mentality in CA spills over into other patterns of behavior, but I won't go there right now.
And, stings? Oh, yeah, they sting us here. Two years ago (and yes, I'm still irate about this), I came out of the subway in downtown LA and crossed the street to get to work, right behind someone else who'd also come out of the subway. Some motorcycle cop stands up off his bike on the corner and motions to me, saying, "Can I talk to you?" Sure, I dunno, why not? I think. Because he gave me a **** $128 dollar ticket for CROSSING THE STREET WHILE THE DON'T WALK SIGNAL WAS FLASHING. Note that it was flashing, not solid. Note that there is a countdown timer. Note that every other jurisdiction - and even some areas of LA - have completely different signals; some go straight to Don't Walk without flashing; some flash with numbers, etc. I ended up with a $128 ticket. I meant to fight it, but it just ended up not being worth the effort. At least by starting the process of contesting it, I somehow got out of the extra $10 or whatever that they charge for paying online.
Since then, whenever I see Mr. **** Motorcyle officer standing on the corner, I warn people either (a) not to cross, or (b) not to talk to him. I'll probably get beaten on the kidneys till I piss blood someday for it.
I really should put this into Rants, I suppose.
In most places, the law requires pedestrians to look first, and makes them responsible for the accident if they cross the street when a motorist is already too close to stop safely.
However, if you'r far enough away, it's perfectly fine that you should have to stop. Sense of entitlement has nothing to do with it; it's not like motorists are entitled to keep going. That's the designated place where they have to stop for pedestrians, and that way (if people followed the law) you'd know where to expect to see them rather than having to watch for them running into the street any damn place like so many do.
As to Vindi's question on divided highways, I believe that if there is a place of safety (meaning a place vehicles are not allowed to cross at any time; not necessarily a place it is physically impossible for them to cross) in between the section you are driving on and the section they are crossing, you do not have to stop unless they reach that place and have sufficient time to start crossing your section while still allowing you time to slow down. Essentially, they are crossing 2 separate streets; it's similar to not having to pull over for an ambulance on the opposite side of a divided highway.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
