This is why speeding is stupid, if you had been speeding, who knows whether you would of stopped early enough.
Edit: My state laws make you yield to pedestrians.
Edit: My state laws make you yield to pedestrians.
compman25
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2006
- 3,767
- 2
- 81
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: suse920
Originally posted by: mugs
Another nail in the little girl's coffin.
Seriously - the way I read randay's story, he hit the brakes as soon as she ran out into the road and still nearly hit the girl. You all are saying that he has to yield to a pedestrian in the crosswalk - which it sounds like he did everything in his power to do, and barely was able to do so. What he did not do was yield to a pedestrian on the sidewalk.
You can't just run out in front of cars and expect them to be able to stop in time, crosswalk or no crosswalk.
i'm not saying he commited a mortal sin and should lose his license. But when another car is stop and a little girl i waiting to cross a crosswalk i think its pretty safe to say one should allow her to cross. I wouldnt be saying the same thing if he was dealing with an adult.
I'm under the impression that this all happened pretty quickly, and he reacted as soon as it became evident what was happening.
He says in OP "little girl waits to cross the street" and "she looks down my lane and sees my car, then she looks at the other lane", since he was able to notice all of that he had time to slow down and let the girl at the crosswalk cross. He just waited to scare the shit out of her.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Originally posted by: compman25
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: suse920
Originally posted by: mugs
Another nail in the little girl's coffin.
Seriously - the way I read randay's story, he hit the brakes as soon as she ran out into the road and still nearly hit the girl. You all are saying that he has to yield to a pedestrian in the crosswalk - which it sounds like he did everything in his power to do, and barely was able to do so. What he did not do was yield to a pedestrian on the sidewalk.
You can't just run out in front of cars and expect them to be able to stop in time, crosswalk or no crosswalk.
i'm not saying he commited a mortal sin and should lose his license. But when another car is stop and a little girl i waiting to cross a crosswalk i think its pretty safe to say one should allow her to cross. I wouldnt be saying the same thing if he was dealing with an adult.
I'm under the impression that this all happened pretty quickly, and he reacted as soon as it became evident what was happening.
He says in OP "little girl waits to cross the street" and "she looks down my lane and sees my car, then she looks at the other lane", since he was able to notice all of that he had time to slow down and let the girl at the crosswalk cross. He just waited to scare the shit out of her.
He does not have to stop because someone on the sidewalk looks at him. The normal, expected, and apparently required by law in the OP's state reaction by a pedestrian who is on the sidewalk near a crosswalk and who sees a car approaching is to wait. OP did nothing wrong. Pedestrian had no right to cross the street at the time.
Originally posted by: mugs
Another nail in the little girl's coffin.
(randay would get that, most of the rest of you can ignore it)
Seriously - the way I read randay's story, he hit the brakes as soon as she ran out into the road and still nearly hit the girl. You all are saying that he has to yield to a pedestrian in the crosswalk - which it sounds like he did everything in his power to do, and barely was able to do so. What he did not do was yield to a pedestrian on the sidewalk.
You can't just run out in front of cars and expect them to be able to stop in time, crosswalk or no crosswalk.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/.../bills/HB2084_HD2_.htm
Little girl was wrong, randay was not.
I think you are misinterpreting the law, mugs.
If you look a few sections downs, I'm sure you'll probably find similiar language of how a driver (even when he/she has the right away) cannot proceed into the path of jaywalker-- even though the jaywalker is clearly in the wrong. The intention in both cases is that just because you have the right of way doesn't give you a free license to throw caution to the wind.
She was already on the street before he crossed the crosswalk, so she clearly had the right of way. She was wrong for not exercising due caution, but he still would've been primarily at fault had she been hit.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: mugs
Another nail in the little girl's coffin.
Seriously - the way I read randay's story, he hit the brakes as soon as she ran out into the road and still nearly hit the girl. You all are saying that he has to yield to a pedestrian in the crosswalk - which it sounds like he did everything in his power to do, and barely was able to do so. What he did not do was yield to a pedestrian on the sidewalk.
You can't just run out in front of cars and expect them to be able to stop in time, crosswalk or no crosswalk.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/.../bills/HB2084_HD2_.htm
Little girl was wrong, randay was not.
I think you are misinterpreting the law, mugs.
If you look a few sections downs, I'm sure you'll probably find similiar language of how a driver (even when he/she has the right away) cannot proceed into the path of jaywalker-- even though the jaywalker is clearly in the wrong. The intention in both cases is that just because you have the right of way doesn't give you a free license to throw caution to the wind.
She was already on the street before he crossed the crosswalk, so she clearly had the right of way. She was wrong for not exercising due caution, but he still would've been primarily at fault had she been hit.
Here in a place I call reality, there is something called stopping distance.
He did all he needed to do when she was on the sidewalk - he took his foot off the gas and put it on the brake. Do you people really stop in the middle of the road every time you see a person on a sidewalk waiting to cross the road?
The pedestrian has the right of way when they're in the crosswalk, but cars don't have to stop to let them enter the crosswalk, and pedestrians can't enter the crosswalk when it's not safe to do so. OP did nothing wrong.
If people drove the way Anandtechers CLAIM to drive, traffic would grind to a halt.
If you are behind the wheel, you should automatically assume any little kid or animal you see alongside the road might jump out into the road at any time and you should be prepared to act accordingly. In this instance, she was waiting to cross the road, giving him even more reason to expect her to enter the roadway. You should NEVER get behind the wheel if you don't understand that children are unpredictable. The child who jumps out from behind a car and into your path, you cannot reasonable be expected to react in time to because you didn't see her, but with a child at a crosswalk that you can see from a distance, you have no excuse.
I find this statement of the OP's to be really disturbing: "drivers, please dont give up the right of way, you have it for a reason." What's the alternative? Go ahead and hit a little kid to prove your point??
Originally posted by: mugs
Here in a place I call reality, there is something called stopping distance.
Do you people really stop in the middle of the road every time you see a person on a sidewalk waiting to cross the road?
OP did nothing wrong.
If people drove the way Anandtechers CLAIM to drive, traffic would grind to a halt.
Looking at Ohio Revised Code as a guide (since I happen to have a hardcopy on-hand for perusal), the law states that you must yield, or even stop, to allow a pedestrian to cross the street at a crosswalk provided the pedestrian is either (and I'm paraphrasing here):
a) Actually on the opposite half of the street you are on and his/her path continues through your half of the street you are traveling, or
b) On the curb of the half of the street you are on and beginning to enter the crosswalk
The opposing car in the OP's case followed the law and properly yielded the right of way to the girl for b). The OP should have also yielded the right of way for a).
Note also that you may have to STOP in order to yield to the pedestrian's right of way-- which means the pedestrian doesn't necessarily have to wait until there isn't a car in sight before proceeding to cross the street at a crosswalk.
Bottom line, yielding to someone with the right of way means yielding to someone with the right of way--whether its a pedestrian trying to cross the street, or you are at a intersection trying to turn left and yielding to opposing traffic.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Yielding the right of way when you are not required to is generally bad. If you follow the rules of the road, you are predictable. If you yield the right of way when you are not expected to, you create an unpredictable situation like what happened to the OP. He was referring to the other driver, not himself. If the other driver had driven normally, the girl never would have run out in front of the OP.
zanejohnson
Diamond Member
- Nov 29, 2002
- 7,054
- 17
- 81
you drive like an asshole.
i pretty much let any pedestrian trying to cross a busy road by, i dont care if it stops all the traffic behind me, it's the nice thing to do.... i also alot of times stop to let cars into traffic, or make a lane change even if involves me slowing down to below the speed limit to allow them to do so..... you should be nicer to people, dont be an asshole driver.
i pretty much let any pedestrian trying to cross a busy road by, i dont care if it stops all the traffic behind me, it's the nice thing to do.... i also alot of times stop to let cars into traffic, or make a lane change even if involves me slowing down to below the speed limit to allow them to do so..... you should be nicer to people, dont be an asshole driver.
The little girl had indicated she wanted to cross the road. Around here, as with many places in this country, the other driver was obligated to stop when she indicated she wanted to cross, and the OP would have been obligated to stop as well. Many places, the cars do NOT have the right of way in the situation he described. Do you know what state he lives in and what the laws are there?
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: mugs
Here in a place I call reality, there is something called stopping distance.
Do you people really stop in the middle of the road every time you see a person on a sidewalk waiting to cross the road?
OP did nothing wrong.
If people drove the way Anandtechers CLAIM to drive, traffic would grind to a halt.
Looking at Ohio Revised Code as a guide (since I happen to have a hardcopy on-hand for perusal), the law states that you must yield, or even stop, to allow a pedestrian to cross the street at a crosswalk provided the pedestrian is either (and I'm paraphrasing here):
a) Actually on the opposite half of the street you are on and his/her path continues through your half of the street you are traveling, or
b) On the curb of the half of the street you are on and beginning to enter the crosswalk
The opposing car in the OP's case followed the law and properly yielded the right of way to the girl for b). The OP should have also yielded the right of way for a).
Note also that you may have to STOP in order to yield to the pedestrian's right of way-- which means the pedestrian doesn't necessarily have to wait until there isn't a car in sight before proceeding to cross the street at a crosswalk.
Bottom line, yielding to someone with the right of way means yielding to someone with the right of way--whether its a pedestrian trying to cross the street, or you are at a intersection trying to turn left and yielding to opposing traffic.
Part A is what applies to the other driver; he had no obligation to yield. She wasn't on the street, he waved her onto the street. Part B applies to the OP; he was obligated to yield when she started to enter the street, which is presumably when he realized she was walking to school because she missed the short bus and he started braking.
You just made it more clear that the OP did nothing wrong.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
I do, he lives in Hawaii. I posted a link from the Hawaii state government's website above.
It says:
"(c) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and proceed into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. "
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: mugs
Here in a place I call reality, there is something called stopping distance.
Do you people really stop in the middle of the road every time you see a person on a sidewalk waiting to cross the road?
OP did nothing wrong.
If people drove the way Anandtechers CLAIM to drive, traffic would grind to a halt.
Looking at Ohio Revised Code as a guide (since I happen to have a hardcopy on-hand for perusal), the law states that you must yield, or even stop, to allow a pedestrian to cross the street at a crosswalk provided the pedestrian is either (and I'm paraphrasing here):
a) Actually on the opposite half of the street you are on and his/her path continues through your half of the street you are traveling, or
b) On the curb of the half of the street you are on and beginning to enter the crosswalk
The opposing car in the OP's case followed the law and properly yielded the right of way to the girl for b). The OP should have also yielded the right of way for a).
Note also that you may have to STOP in order to yield to the pedestrian's right of way-- which means the pedestrian doesn't necessarily have to wait until there isn't a car in sight before proceeding to cross the street at a crosswalk.
Bottom line, yielding to someone with the right of way means yielding to someone with the right of way--whether its a pedestrian trying to cross the street, or you are at a intersection trying to turn left and yielding to opposing traffic.
Part A is what applies to the other driver; he had no obligation to yield. She wasn't on the street, he waved her onto the street. Part B applies to the OP; he was obligated to yield when she started to enter the street, which is presumably when he realized she was walking to school because she missed the short bus and he started braking.
You just made it more clear that the OP did nothing wrong.
Ok, maybe I visualized this wrong... I was under the impression that the girl began on the curb of the street on the opposite side of the OP-- and thus the other driver rightly yielded the right of way to her. Is that not correct?
If that's not the case, then the other driver did not have to yield the right of way to the girl since she wan't on the curb on his side of the street nor actually on the other half of the street-- but the OP still would have to yield the right of way since the girl was on the curb and beginning to enter the crosswalk even before the other driver stopped.
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: mugs
Here in a place I call reality, there is something called stopping distance.
Do you people really stop in the middle of the road every time you see a person on a sidewalk waiting to cross the road?
OP did nothing wrong.
If people drove the way Anandtechers CLAIM to drive, traffic would grind to a halt.
Looking at Ohio Revised Code as a guide (since I happen to have a hardcopy on-hand for perusal), the law states that you must yield, or even stop, to allow a pedestrian to cross the street at a crosswalk provided the pedestrian is either (and I'm paraphrasing here):
a) Actually on the opposite half of the street you are on and his/her path continues through your half of the street you are traveling, or
b) On the curb of the half of the street you are on and beginning to enter the crosswalk
The opposing car in the OP's case followed the law and properly yielded the right of way to the girl for b). The OP should have also yielded the right of way for a).
Note also that you may have to STOP in order to yield to the pedestrian's right of way-- which means the pedestrian doesn't necessarily have to wait until there isn't a car in sight before proceeding to cross the street at a crosswalk.
Bottom line, yielding to someone with the right of way means yielding to someone with the right of way--whether its a pedestrian trying to cross the street, or you are at a intersection trying to turn left and yielding to opposing traffic.
Part A is what applies to the other driver; he had no obligation to yield. She wasn't on the street, he waved her onto the street. Part B applies to the OP; he was obligated to yield when she started to enter the street, which is presumably when he realized she was walking to school because she missed the short bus and he started braking.
You just made it more clear that the OP did nothing wrong.
Ok, maybe I visualized this wrong... I was under the impression that the girl began on the curb of the street on the opposite side of the OP-- and thus the other driver rightly yielded the right of way to her. Is that not correct?
If that's not the case, then the other driver did not have to yield the right of way to the girl since she wan't on the curb on his side of the street nor actually on the other half of the street-- but the OP still would have to yield the right of way since the girl was on the curb and beginning to enter the crosswalk even before the other driver stopped.
visual aid, slope is not that bad though, if i had to guess maybe 15-20 degrees? i have no idea really. its also a 25mph speed limit road.
Text
Ahh... didn't think about it like that. I just visualized it as I was reading his description and somehow I ended up with the girl starting out on the opposite side of the street (probably because I can't imagine why the opposing driver would stop and wave a child across the street when the child's most immediate threat of danger isn't from his own car but someone else's coming the opposite way who he has no control of).
And as for how the OP would not notice the girl even though she crossed half the street already, I just ASSumed and chalked up to the OP being so sure he had the right of way that he didn't think it possible he would have to stop or slow down for the girl.
If that's not the case, then I was wrong-- the other driver is a complete moron. I still think in any case, the OP still should have slowed down and yielded to the girl.
As for the rest, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
I can drink to that. :thumbsup:
I think the only person who really had anything to add was d1gger, it makes sense and explains why she didnt look twice.
the real issue is that its sort of a blind crosswalk, since one side is sloped. i hadnt thought of that until i really had time to think about it. i probably wouldnt have realized that if it werent for everyone arguing either.
my conclusion is that there should be a stop light at that intersection, and from now on i will drive slowly at that section and be prepared to stop at it. i will just alter my driving habits special for that intersection.
the real issue is that its sort of a blind crosswalk, since one side is sloped. i hadnt thought of that until i really had time to think about it. i probably wouldnt have realized that if it werent for everyone arguing either.
my conclusion is that there should be a stop light at that intersection, and from now on i will drive slowly at that section and be prepared to stop at it. i will just alter my driving habits special for that intersection.
Originally posted by: QED
Ahh... didn't think about it like that. I just visualized it as I was reading his description and somehow I ended up with the girl starting out on the opposite side of the street (probably because I can't imagine why the opposing driver would stop and wave a child across the street when the child's most immediate threat of danger isn't from his own car but someone else's coming the opposite way who he has no control of).
And as for how the OP would not notice the girl even though she crossed half the street already, I just ASSumed and chalked up to the OP being so sure he had the right of way that he didn't think it possible he would have to stop or slow down for the girl.
If that's not the case, then I was wrong-- the other driver is a complete moron. I still think in any case, the OP still should have slowed down and yielded to the girl.
As for the rest, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
I can drink to that. :thumbsup:
that law was actually just recently changed here and caused quite a stir, used to be people just kept going even though a pedestrian was still having to cross thier half of the road. so now it could be a hundred lane road, and a pedestrian starts walking from the other side, you have to wait till he crosses the entire intersection before you go.
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: QED
Originally posted by: mugs
Here in a place I call reality, there is something called stopping distance.
Do you people really stop in the middle of the road every time you see a person on a sidewalk waiting to cross the road?
OP did nothing wrong.
If people drove the way Anandtechers CLAIM to drive, traffic would grind to a halt.
Looking at Ohio Revised Code as a guide (since I happen to have a hardcopy on-hand for perusal), the law states that you must yield, or even stop, to allow a pedestrian to cross the street at a crosswalk provided the pedestrian is either (and I'm paraphrasing here):
a) Actually on the opposite half of the street you are on and his/her path continues through your half of the street you are traveling, or
b) On the curb of the half of the street you are on and beginning to enter the crosswalk
The opposing car in the OP's case followed the law and properly yielded the right of way to the girl for b). The OP should have also yielded the right of way for a).
Note also that you may have to STOP in order to yield to the pedestrian's right of way-- which means the pedestrian doesn't necessarily have to wait until there isn't a car in sight before proceeding to cross the street at a crosswalk.
Bottom line, yielding to someone with the right of way means yielding to someone with the right of way--whether its a pedestrian trying to cross the street, or you are at a intersection trying to turn left and yielding to opposing traffic.
Part A is what applies to the other driver; he had no obligation to yield. She wasn't on the street, he waved her onto the street. Part B applies to the OP; he was obligated to yield when she started to enter the street, which is presumably when he realized she was walking to school because she missed the short bus and he started braking.
You just made it more clear that the OP did nothing wrong.
Ok, maybe I visualized this wrong... I was under the impression that the girl began on the curb of the street on the opposite side of the OP-- and thus the other driver rightly yielded the right of way to her. Is that not correct?
If that's not the case, then the other driver did not have to yield the right of way to the girl since she wan't on the curb on his side of the street nor actually on the other half of the street-- but the OP still would have to yield the right of way since the girl was on the curb and beginning to enter the crosswalk even before the other driver stopped.
If girl was on OP's side, then B) applies since she was in the process of stepping through the crosswalk.
If girl was on OP's opposite site, then A) applies.
Ok, if I'm looking at the illustration right than the other driver is a complete moron. Not necessarily for stopping (which he didn't have to do if she was still on the sidewalk on the other side of the street), but mainly for waving the girl over to cross a portion of the street over which he had no control over.
The irony of reading this stupid thread and this serious thread http://forums.anandtech.com/me...=2172794&enterthread=y is just too much.
so, your right of way on the road is more important than her right to life. :roll:
nevermind that in most states and localities she would have had the right of way and the rule of thumb will always be, if in doubt the pedestrian has the right of way. how difficult is that.
op is clearly a moron not deserving of driving a car.
so, your right of way on the road is more important than her right to life. :roll:
nevermind that in most states and localities she would have had the right of way and the rule of thumb will always be, if in doubt the pedestrian has the right of way. how difficult is that.
op is clearly a moron not deserving of driving a car.
mugs
Lifer
- Apr 29, 2003
- 48,920
- 46
- 91
OP said nothing like that. OP said that if the other guy did what was normal and expected, the girl's life never would have been in danger. OP took proper precautions - he took his foot off the gas and put it on the brake in case something unexpected happened. Because of that, the girl didn't get hit.
yeah that is what happened. but it wasnt all that persons fault. all 3 of us made small mistakes and its just lucky it didnt turn into something serious.
and again, my statement of regardless of what the laws of that locality is, if in doubt, the pedestrian has the right of way, the other car driver understood this and so should the OP have understood it. you said in another post, a driver should do what is expected of him (paraphrased) i agree with that 100%. in this type of scenario, the driver should yield to the pedestrian.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter