`(625 ILCS 5/11-1002)` `(from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1002)`
`Sec. 11-1002. Pedestrians' right-of-way at crosswalks.`
`(a) When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.`
`(b)` **No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a moving vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard**`.`
Mine says; **"A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield."**
I kind of like mine better, slightly easier to understand. USA law is awesome like this.
As a pedestrian you have to put your own safety first, that means eye contact with approaching drivers to make sure they're going to yield. Running out without looking is dumb and what if a driver doesn't have room to stop?
Do you drive through a green like and expect cross traffic to stop or do you cower in fear?
I will continue crossing streets and expect drivers to do their duty and yield
You sound like the typical driver who gets annoyed by having to yield, most drivers don’t even know what a crosswalk is
Pedestrians are not permitted to leave a place of safety so suddenly that they cause a hazard.
With that said, you do have a duty to stop and yield to pedestrians approaching the crosswalk (that you can see, obviously). The pedestrian doesn't need to be "in" the crosswalk to have protection.
Compare the crosswalk scenario with making a left turn. If you made a left turn at a green circle, were hit by someone coming the other way, and claimed "but he wasn't ***IN*** the intersection yet when I turned," you'd obviously be wrong. The obligation to yield is to both those in the crosswalk and those approaching it.
I do believe some states they do need to be in the crosswalk. Depends on the situation though. At a traffic light it doesn’t matter but some crossings pedestrians need to wait for a break in traffic before walking out.
If there is a walk signal, pedestrian has right of way. If there's no walk signal, pedestrians still have right of way but they have to wait until a vehicle yields. They cannot jump in front of a moving vehicle and claim ROW, if that driver didn't see them. No one should ever assume oncoming traffic sees them without some evidence. Can't win a civil suit if you're dead.
In CA we use the term “marked and unmarked crosswalks”, both having the same protection. Essentially any street with corners you can cross legally without J walking.
Once they step off the curb yes traffic needs to stop. I mean when they are still on the sudewalk they are supposed to wait for a break in traffic if it’s not a controlled signal.
Yes but they can only yield if they see you.
You should not step off the curb until you see that traffic sees you and yields to you. Right of way is given, not taken.
They see you better when you step off the curb, traffic simply will not yield if you are standing on the sidewalk
Utterly wrong that right of way is given. I take it when I’m on foot
That’s what this entire discussion is about
Pedestrians have the right of way at crosswalks, marked or unmarked
Pedestrians do not have the right of way otherwise
Depends. Not across a green light. Not when there is traffic.
In general, however, pedestrians do not have the right of way:
* At intersections with a green light and/or a no-walk signal.
* On limited access highways like interstates, expressways, or parkways (which pedestrians usually cannot use).
[https://www.jmlawyer.com/blog/do-pedestrians-have-the-right-of-way/](https://www.jmlawyer.com/blog/do-pedestrians-have-the-right-of-way/)
## Pedestrian Right-of-Way at Intersections
Intersections are the most common place for cars and pedestrians to meet, so the applicable rules are well-established. However, it can't be overemphasized that drivers must always exercise caution and avoid endangering pedestrians regardless of who has the right-of-way.
**Intersections with traffic signals.** When traffic signals are present at an intersection, pedestrians may cross only on a green light or specific signal indicating the pedestrian right-of-way (many intersections have a walk signal for pedestrian crossing). Turning vehicles must yield to crossing pedestrians. If a crosswalk signal is present, pedestrians can't enter the intersection on a flashing or solid stop signal (often a red hand) but can continue to cross if already in the intersection.
**Intersections without signals.** At intersections that aren't controlled by traffic signals, drives must yield to crossing pedestrians, especially if a marked crosswalk is present. However, **pedestrians** must always use caution (as must drivers) and **are prohibited from entering the intersection when an approaching vehicle would not have reasonable time to stop.** Some states also r**equire pedestrians to yield to cars in high-speed areas** (for example, where the speed limit is over 35 miles per hour).
[https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/when-do-pedestrians-have-the-right-of-way.html#Pedestrian%20Right-Of-Way%20Outside%20of%20Intersections](https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/when-do-pedestrians-have-the-right-of-way.html#Pedestrian%20Right-Of-Way%20Outside%20of%20Intersections)
Almost all intersections are crosswalks
Of course you must obey them traffic lights
We are talking crosswalks, pedestrians have the right of way
Article is wrong about “especially if marked crosswalk “, nothing distinguishes a marked vs marked crosswalk other marked in yellow school crossings that impose additional burdens on drivers
No. You are wrong. Your full on attempt to just be a contrarian has clouded your ability to be honest with yourself.
You claim that pedestrians always have the right of way but you know that is not true.
If the bushes are a hazard you might want to drop a line to whoever is responsible for them that they need to be cut back.
Guy is a jerk. If you don't already have a dash cam I'd get one.
This is the important takeaway here. If the bushes are obscuring your vision, they're probably obscuring the vision of people walking/jogging/biking too. The jogger should have looked and yielded, but the crossing should allow clear vision for everyone involved.
Yeah I run on trails that cross roads daily. I always stop on the edge of the road and wait for a gap in traffic or people to see me and let me cross. Because I don't feel like getting hit by a car.
Ped would be at fault for failure to not give enough time to clear cross walk. My cousin had a similar scenarios as a ped. pd said he was at fault. Even though he had right of way and everything. Peds get cocky and think they have right of way regardless of the situation and that is false.
I mean technically you'd be at fault but I think it's just stupid to run across a cross walk when you see a car going through and just expect them to stop. I've never once crossed a cross walk without making sure the vehicle was actually slowing down for me. Natural selection will teach him one day i guess.
Honestly I'd place blame at the feet of whoever designed that intersection. If it's designed in such a way that a pedestrian can bolt into a designated crosswalk such that a driver going 35mph is unable to safely stop and yield, then either the visibility is too low for both drivers and pedestrians or the posted speed limit is too high or it needs some kind of traffic control or all of the above.
Without seeing the situation from the perspective of the pedestrian as well, it's hard to gauge whether either or both parties in this incident did their due diligence. It's quite possible that though the posted speed limit is 35, the road and traffic conditions warrant driving slower for you, and pedestrians ought to slow down as well before entering the crosswalk if they're coming out of what you've essentially described as a blind corner.
You had sufficient time/distance to stop and yield so WTF were you honking for? They don’t have to be walking and lay off the “high speed” nonsense, he was likely doing 10mph or less
Legal or not. Right or wrong. You should probably try not to hit pedestrians... I mean don't swerve into the car next to you. I'm just saying atleast hit the brakes XD
I don't think OP is asking whether he'd be permitted to run over the jogger. They're asking whether the jogger was legally justified in taking right of way by jogging into an intersection without yielding. And the answer is no, you can't dart into traffic because you think you have right of way.
Would you feel better if I had said, "While yes it is illegal to just sprint out in front of cars, you as the car should still attempt to avoid hitting the illegal pedestrian"?
Pedestrians are required to look before entering a crosswalk to make sure it’s safe. Also, if the driver had a dash cam showing that the person ran into the street no court is going to find them liable.
Californian here and I thought this too, but looking it up it says the pedestrian can only jaywalk without consequences if done *safely*.
https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/vehicle-code/21955/
All you have to say is you didn’t see anyone. You think everyone that leaves the scene of a fatal hit and run goes to prison? If so I have a bridge to sell you.
Is The Pedestrian Ever At Fault?
Pedestrians have a responsibility to act with reasonable care when out on the roads, just like all motor vehicle drivers.
And although pedestrians have the right of way and drivers must often yield to their movements, some circumstances may result in a pedestrian sharing some of the fault for an accident.
For example, suppose a pedestrian is intoxicated and juts out into the street unexpectedly and without warning.
This may lead to the pedestrian sharing some proportion of fault for their own injuries and losses
CALIFORNIA PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY: DOES THE PEDESTRIAN ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN CALIFORNIA?
Pedestrians do not have the right-of-way when they are jaywalking. This means that they must yield to oncoming vehicles if they are violating traffic rules by crossing against a red light or any other time they would be considered jaywalking.
Even when a pedestrian is jaywalking, drivers must still take the proper precautions and take all possible measures to avoid hitting them. If a driver can avoid a collision with a jaywalking pedestrian, they are legally required to do so in California. So if you’ve been wondering, “do jaywalkers have the right of way?” the answer is typically no.
Jaywalking refers to crossing a street outside of designated crosswalks or against traffic signals. In California, jaywalking is only illegal in some circumstances. Pedestrians are allowed to cross the street outside of crosswalks, but they must yield the right-of-way to any vehicles that pose an imminent danger. If they fail to follow this rule, a violation can cost up to $200 in fines. Depending on the officer who stops you, you may be issued a warning instead.
If a pedestrian is jaywalking and is hit by a vehicle, they will likely not be able to fully recover financial damages due to pure comparative negligence. Pure comparative negligence is a legal principle used by many states to determine liability and damages for an accident.
In pure comparative negligence states like California, compensation for an injury can still be awarded even if the plaintiff played some role in causing their own injuries. The amount of compensation the injured pedestrian receives will be reduced based on percentage of fault
Not crossing in a crosswalk is what is commonly referred to as jaywalking and pedestrians do not have the right of way when crossing outside a crosswalk. Which has nothing to do with what I replied to which was about crossing in a crosswalk
Just wait until you’re a pedestrian faced with what are essentially unpalatable choices for road crossing. In many instances I have to physically put myself in the road in order to make the crosswalk available to me. There’s no “waiting by the side for a nice driver to wave you by.” Drivers in almost every situation assume they’re the only folks on the road and that sidewalks are nothing more than a nuisance.
As someone who is frequently a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver, I’m over the top about stopping to let pedestrians cross in crosswalks (I.e. following the law). I regularly get honked at for it and literally could not give fewer fucks. I’m amazed at how many cars will fly through it like they have no obligation at all.
I’m with you. These days I’m a regular runner but I’ve previously been a pedestrian walking to work. I’m amazed at how little attention folks pay to the sidewalk.
Technically they do but this doesn't mean that pedestrian didn't break the law. They jaywalked technically because they didn't make sure it as safe to cross. If they had done this at a green light causing cars to slam on their breaks, it wouldn't have been any different.
One time I got a green light and started to go when all of the cars were stopped and within two seconds, I see two women appear out of nowhere and I didn't see them because the big pick up truck next to me was blocking their view from me. I slammed on my breaks fast.
Does it matter? The ultimate goal is to not hit a pedestrian regardless of if they are in the wrong or you are in the wrong. I don’t really understand what knowing that the pedestrian doesn’t have the right of way changes for you here
There’s a responsibility to cross safely. And if there’s an obstruction to your view you are supposed to slow. As to right of way isn’t the correct question.
Are you liable under the circumstances? So can you prove he crossed unsafely. Dash camera can prove that.
Pedestrians don’t always have the right of way. If they are waiting and you can safely stop you must. But they cannot legally just jump in front of a moving vehicle. They must first approach and show an intent to cross. Then that intent creates a right to cross in front of vehicles that can safely stop. Emergency braking isn’t considered safely stopping. So he violated the law and if proven would be liable for damages to your vehicle.
This is why I have a dash cam, odds are good that one day someone’s gonna do something really stupid, cause an accident and it’ll be the only way I can save my ass.
Most places, the pedestrian would be in the wrong. However, check your local laws. Some places (like Gatlinburg, TN) have the law setup to where a pedestrian ENTERING the crosswalk gets automatic ROW. YMMV
Peds always have the right of way, even when they legally don't. Mow down an illegal jaywalker and you still catch a charge. It's stupid but it's the way it is
Get a dash cam. Laws vary by location, so your best answer will come from your local prosecutors office. I would pose the question in very simple terms: Someone runs in front of my vehicle from a blind spot where I don't have time to hit the brakes and avoid hitting them. Will you prosecute me?
In practice, many states have shared/comparative fault... Both parties can be cited, and both parties can incur a percentage of financial damages.
How it pans out depends on the available evidence, which is why I run a dashcam whenever possible. Keep in mind, even that tool can be a double edged sword if you're not a careful driver.
in what you described.. you technically had the right of way -- as you didnt see the pedestrian appraching the crosswalk until last second due to the bush blocking the view..
Pedestrian (the runner) -- being dumb..
a lot of times, pedestrians and cyclists act more recklessly on the roads becuase "they have the right of way" complex, so if anything happens between them and a vehicle -- they assume vehicle will automatically be at fault and they'll win a big pay out.. --.-- There are certain moments when they dont always have the right of way all the time.. -- aka any action resulting in being a hazard on the road.
Here (Canada) -- its the cyclists... they ride on the road (bike lane far right side) not on the sidewalk.. but they dont obey road rules.... --.-- they act like a vehicle on the road x pedestrian at the same time.. :
- they dont stop at stop signs
- sometimes they dont stop at red lights... if there is a "safe gap" they will cycle and run red lights...
- they act like they have the right of way above anybody else - even pedestrians - even when crosswalk countdown is on for them to cross....
once, i was driving and approaching was a 3 way intersection: my light & opoosit direction traffic - we had the green light.. the 3rd lane (they dont have a light at all -- so they have to wait until safe gap to make left/right turns (no straight) or wait until our light turns red... -- so I'm approaching green light, i see a cyclist on the right (other traffic) without a helmet on, inching into the middle of the intersection wanting to make a left turn.. But my traffic and opposite traffic was busy, as I am getting closer to MY green light... cyclist is in the middle of the intersection and starts making a left turn.. Me and the driver on the other side had to stop for this cyclist.... >.< impeding traffic that had green light..
Yes you were obviously wrong for honking at the pedestrian crossing the street on a crosswalk. If you had time to stop even though you were cruising through an intersection at the speed limit you shouldn't be honking. You should slow down for intersections.
It sounds like the intersection has poor visibility, you should have been aware of that and going slower so that you can see that nobody is crossing.
Maybe the pedestrian could have also been more cautious but if you had hit them in the crosswalk while driving too fast for the situation as you were, then that would've been your fault.
If there was any risk of hitting the pedestrian then you weren't in the wrong for honking. If you honked at them after the danger was past and they had already seen they ran out in front of you then it wasn't strictly necessary but also not out of line.
I'm never not amazed at how cavalier some pedestrians are when they literally taunt two-ton machines to hit them. What are you going to gain form this? Because you won't win a lawsuit. What you will win is a lifetime of pain.
Some people are just stupid.
pedestrians have right of way 100% of the time. if pedestrians aren't following the laws set forth for pedestrians, they can be charged with that crime, but that doesn't negate the fact they still have right of way against vehicles.
let's say a person runs into the street before they're given the walk signal, and you hit them. it is likely that you will both be charged with a crime, one offense doesn't negate the other.
So theoretically I’m going the speed limit and someone who wants to delete themselves purposely waits until I can’t stop and then runs off the sidewalk into my car. That’s a crime by me?
No, those are not the rules. See the code section cited elsewhere in this thread.
Edited to add: > `(b)` **No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a moving vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard**`.`
they will be charged with that crime, and you will also be charged with failure to yield to a pedestrian. one person’s offense doesn’t negate the other person’s offense.
Right, this is why we have Jaywalking laws, because pedestrians have the right of way 100% of the time.
I don't think "Right of way" means what you think it does.
> the legal right of a [pedestrian](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=3d5aec0ebbda9031&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn09AfUK7_Ioht8j_54MJCLSx3q7O2A:1712607710829&q=pedestrian&si=AKbGX_pvY3MWP4azJI0Z_NruCLb8UobgoF8uPafZD0WKu7dyzmqzSvTI6WzKwF03WQF2Eptyr_4LM7Zqw9-rwHYqCm75ZAOBc7F2DIxy_2QKxRJdL9z5-vo%3D&expnd=1), vehicle, or ship to proceed with [precedence](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=3d5aec0ebbda9031&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn09AfUK7_Ioht8j_54MJCLSx3q7O2A:1712607710829&q=precedence&si=AKbGX_pvY3MWP4azJI0Z_NruCLb8PdRN968bOFDX8l1Q7LDzexSdon5DOntJcuMXeZGaXH6rlXBsOSH278RL9VWrwc9j63HR6cQJ5MIKbROtu1O9lFqEp_Y%3D&expnd=1) over others in a particular situation or place.
You can't simultaneously break a law saying you can't do something while also having the right of way. That's a direct conflict to what a right of way is.
Generally the pedestrian has the right of way once they have left the curb. Though there may be a law also saying in effect the pedestrian shall not suddenly jump in front of traffic in a dangerous manner.
Not saying this is what happened in your case, but frequently at marked trail crossings drivers decline to yield to pedestrians, assuming the pedestrian will wait for the cars to pass.
The safe way for the pedestrian to assert right of way is to cautiously step off the curb and be sure the car will stop before proceeding.
Check your local laws, but you might find out that they don’t have the right of way at a crosswalk of that type …
We have a very, very busy bike path at crosses main road but people have to get up and walk their bicycles across the road and they do not have the right of way unless they’re walking that bicycle .
Pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way, even if they cross illegally (like on a red light or in the middle of the block). If you happen to hit one while they are crossing, be sure you can prove that 1) you could not see him in time before he entered the road, and 2) that you did not have enough time to stop. It's really the only defense you have.
Based on what you said, #1 would be true (he appeared from behind some bushes, and you couldn't see him approach the road, but #2 does not apply since you were able to stop in time and not hit him. So the worst thing that could happen is he flipped you the bird.
[Here](https://www.johnfoy.com/faqs/georgia-pedestrian-right-of-way-and-jaywalking-state-laws/) is a link to a local attorney where I live. Note the section that says “When a Motorist Has the Right of Way in Georgia”. It lists scenarios in which a pedestrian does *not* have the right of way.
Now, show me yours. I showed you mine.
In fairness, Georgia--as with all States--has the common law "duty to exercise due care" which requires all persons to exercise concern for their own safety and to avoid collisions to the extent possible.
A layman's explanation of this is that no once can ever "have" right of way. They are merely obligated in some cases to yield it to others. A motorist doesn't "have" right of way over a pedestrian (even with that lawyer's page having that heading) in any case--but neither does the pedestrian "have" right of way over a motorist.
In particular for Georgia, see OCGA 40-6-93:
>Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter \[in other words, "***even if the pedestrian is doing something unlawful or the driver has preferential right of way***"\], every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway, shall give warning by sounding his horn when necessary, and shall exercise proper precautions upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated person.
I agree with you in the literal sense: no one, including pedestrians, ever "has" right of way.
However, I agree with MuttJunior in the "what they intended to say" sense: even though a driver may "have" \[read "have" as "not be required by crosswalk law to yield the"\] right of way to a pedestrian, they will still be at fault under the common law unless they can demonstrate the two factors stated.
I didn’t say that or even imply it. This is a strawman argument but I’ll answer anyway:
No. That’s why pedestrians should look before crossing. Like our parents taught us.
I could flip the script and ask if you think it’s okay for pedestrians to just jump out in front of traffic with no consequences, but I’ve been on this tangent long enough
if a pedestrian crosses the street illegal, it is your responsibility as a driver to avoid hitting them if you can. That is "right-of-way" the pedestrian has - They have the right to cross without being hit. It doesn't mean that they can't get a ticket for crossing against the light or jaywalking.
[Here](https://www.johnfoy.com/faqs/georgia-pedestrian-right-of-way-and-jaywalking-state-laws/) is a link to a local attorney where I live. Note the section that says “When a Motorist Has the Right of Way in Georgia”. It lists scenarios in which a pedestrian does *not* have the right of way.
Do *you* have a source for *your* claim?
Yes, I have [a source](https://www.johnfoy.com/faqs/georgia-pedestrian-right-of-way-and-jaywalking-state-laws/). if you read this article, it says EXACTLY what I stated about - The driver of a motor vehicle has to prevent his vehicle from hitting a pedestrian if at all possible. If the pedestrian steps off the curb and the driver can stop in time, they must do so and let the pedestrian cross.
That sounds a lot like "right-of-way" to me.
Dude. You posted a source from Georgia. That’s the law *in Georgia*. Notwithstanding the fact that it’s laughable that anyone would hold Georgia up as a national standard to begin with, there are 49 other states with 49 different laws. Calm down.
All 50 states inherited the common law duty to exercise due care. This applies equally to drivers and pedestrians but simply means that in ***ALL*** cases, a person must avoid a collision to the extent possible.
P.S. your anti-Georgia bit is silly, given that they are responding to someone with a source ***from Georgia.***
Your own article:
## When a Motorist Has the Right of Way in Georgia
A motorist can strike a pedestrian but not be held responsible for the accident. Instances in which this may be the case include:
* **A pedestrian steps off a curb or sidewalk**. A pedestrian may suddenly step onto a roadway and get struck by a motorist that does not have enough time to stop their vehicle.
* **A pedestrian crosses the road without looking**. It is a pedestrian’s responsibility to look for cars before they cross the road outside of a crosswalk.
* **There is an emergency**. A pedestrian is required to yield the right of way to ambulances and other emergency vehicles on public roads.
Georgia motorists ***do not always have to yield to pedestrians***. When driving near pedestrians, it is a good idea to proceed with caution. Otherwise, if you travel too close to pedestrians, there is a risk that you could cause a pedestrian accident.
I mean, it ***literally*** says pedestrians do not always have the right of way. You should read the whole page before you post something.
Having the right of way is not a permission slip to hit people
It can be a factor in determining liability but not the primary factor
If you can safely stop you must stop
No. I’m saying that if not giving pedestrians right of way when they’re breaking the law to begin with would deter more people than if they thought they were protected no matter how stupid they were acting.
`(625 ILCS 5/11-1002)` `(from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-1002)` `Sec. 11-1002. Pedestrians' right-of-way at crosswalks.` `(a) When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger.` `(b)` **No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a moving vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard**`.`
Same law in my state almost word for word.
That's probably the case for most of the US.
Europe as well
Mine says; **"A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield."** I kind of like mine better, slightly easier to understand. USA law is awesome like this.
Yep and driver here had time to safely yield and did so
Slamming on the breaks is not safely yielding
They are called brakes and he safely yielded
Slamming on the brakes is not safely yielding.
Stopped safely and even honked first Safely stopped
As a pedestrian you have to put your own safety first, that means eye contact with approaching drivers to make sure they're going to yield. Running out without looking is dumb and what if a driver doesn't have room to stop?
I well understand the safety aspect of crossing a road and the risks of irresponsible, inattentive drivers killing people
I appears that OP was the attentive one I'm this scenario and was able to save the jogger from their own lack of caution.
Then you should know not to walk out in front of cars, assuming they will see you and stop. Yet, here we are...
Do you drive through a green like and expect cross traffic to stop or do you cower in fear? I will continue crossing streets and expect drivers to do their duty and yield You sound like the typical driver who gets annoyed by having to yield, most drivers don’t even know what a crosswalk is
I appears that OP was the attentive one I'm this scenario and was able to save the jogger from their own lack of caution.
Why even engage in conversation if your gonna be a cynical douche bag about it? Do you enjoy Reddit arguments? Life that empty you gotta do this?
I enjoy walking and I appreciate my right to cross a street in a crosswalk and expect cars to yield You want to yield to cars, feel free to
Driver safely stopped so there was no immediate hazard
Pedestrians are not permitted to leave a place of safety so suddenly that they cause a hazard. With that said, you do have a duty to stop and yield to pedestrians approaching the crosswalk (that you can see, obviously). The pedestrian doesn't need to be "in" the crosswalk to have protection. Compare the crosswalk scenario with making a left turn. If you made a left turn at a green circle, were hit by someone coming the other way, and claimed "but he wasn't ***IN*** the intersection yet when I turned," you'd obviously be wrong. The obligation to yield is to both those in the crosswalk and those approaching it.
I do believe some states they do need to be in the crosswalk. Depends on the situation though. At a traffic light it doesn’t matter but some crossings pedestrians need to wait for a break in traffic before walking out.
If there is a walk signal, pedestrian has right of way. If there's no walk signal, pedestrians still have right of way but they have to wait until a vehicle yields. They cannot jump in front of a moving vehicle and claim ROW, if that driver didn't see them. No one should ever assume oncoming traffic sees them without some evidence. Can't win a civil suit if you're dead.
It is possible. I didn't explicitly state it, but in my analysis I relied upon Illinois law since OP stated as such.
In CA we use the term “marked and unmarked crosswalks”, both having the same protection. Essentially any street with corners you can cross legally without J walking.
Name the state where pedestrians must wait for a “break in traffic” You step off the curb and cars must yield not just keep sailing along
Once they step off the curb yes traffic needs to stop. I mean when they are still on the sudewalk they are supposed to wait for a break in traffic if it’s not a controlled signal.
Supposed to? That isn’t what the law says but I certainly do step off the curb to make it clear I am crossing and not waiting for a “break”
Yes but they can only yield if they see you. You should not step off the curb until you see that traffic sees you and yields to you. Right of way is given, not taken.
They see you better when you step off the curb, traffic simply will not yield if you are standing on the sidewalk Utterly wrong that right of way is given. I take it when I’m on foot
It's called Jay Walking. Many states have laws against pedestrians walking in to traffic.
That is not what jay walking is and no state says a pedestrian can’t cross the street in a crosswalk when there is traffic Making up stuff?
You didn't say at a cross walk. All you said was stepping off a curb.
That’s what this entire discussion is about Pedestrians have the right of way at crosswalks, marked or unmarked Pedestrians do not have the right of way otherwise
Depends. Not across a green light. Not when there is traffic. In general, however, pedestrians do not have the right of way: * At intersections with a green light and/or a no-walk signal. * On limited access highways like interstates, expressways, or parkways (which pedestrians usually cannot use). [https://www.jmlawyer.com/blog/do-pedestrians-have-the-right-of-way/](https://www.jmlawyer.com/blog/do-pedestrians-have-the-right-of-way/) ## Pedestrian Right-of-Way at Intersections Intersections are the most common place for cars and pedestrians to meet, so the applicable rules are well-established. However, it can't be overemphasized that drivers must always exercise caution and avoid endangering pedestrians regardless of who has the right-of-way. **Intersections with traffic signals.** When traffic signals are present at an intersection, pedestrians may cross only on a green light or specific signal indicating the pedestrian right-of-way (many intersections have a walk signal for pedestrian crossing). Turning vehicles must yield to crossing pedestrians. If a crosswalk signal is present, pedestrians can't enter the intersection on a flashing or solid stop signal (often a red hand) but can continue to cross if already in the intersection. **Intersections without signals.** At intersections that aren't controlled by traffic signals, drives must yield to crossing pedestrians, especially if a marked crosswalk is present. However, **pedestrians** must always use caution (as must drivers) and **are prohibited from entering the intersection when an approaching vehicle would not have reasonable time to stop.** Some states also r**equire pedestrians to yield to cars in high-speed areas** (for example, where the speed limit is over 35 miles per hour). [https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/when-do-pedestrians-have-the-right-of-way.html#Pedestrian%20Right-Of-Way%20Outside%20of%20Intersections](https://www.drivinglaws.org/resources/when-do-pedestrians-have-the-right-of-way.html#Pedestrian%20Right-Of-Way%20Outside%20of%20Intersections)
Almost all intersections are crosswalks Of course you must obey them traffic lights We are talking crosswalks, pedestrians have the right of way Article is wrong about “especially if marked crosswalk “, nothing distinguishes a marked vs marked crosswalk other marked in yellow school crossings that impose additional burdens on drivers
No. You are wrong. Your full on attempt to just be a contrarian has clouded your ability to be honest with yourself. You claim that pedestrians always have the right of way but you know that is not true.
If the bushes are a hazard you might want to drop a line to whoever is responsible for them that they need to be cut back. Guy is a jerk. If you don't already have a dash cam I'd get one.
This is the important takeaway here. If the bushes are obscuring your vision, they're probably obscuring the vision of people walking/jogging/biking too. The jogger should have looked and yielded, but the crossing should allow clear vision for everyone involved.
Yeah I run on trails that cross roads daily. I always stop on the edge of the road and wait for a gap in traffic or people to see me and let me cross. Because I don't feel like getting hit by a car.
Ped would be at fault for failure to not give enough time to clear cross walk. My cousin had a similar scenarios as a ped. pd said he was at fault. Even though he had right of way and everything. Peds get cocky and think they have right of way regardless of the situation and that is false.
I cannot stress enough how important it is to have a dashcam.
I mean technically you'd be at fault but I think it's just stupid to run across a cross walk when you see a car going through and just expect them to stop. I've never once crossed a cross walk without making sure the vehicle was actually slowing down for me. Natural selection will teach him one day i guess.
Why do you assume the pedestrian saw the car that was travelling 35 mph through an intersection with poor visibility?
Honestly I'd place blame at the feet of whoever designed that intersection. If it's designed in such a way that a pedestrian can bolt into a designated crosswalk such that a driver going 35mph is unable to safely stop and yield, then either the visibility is too low for both drivers and pedestrians or the posted speed limit is too high or it needs some kind of traffic control or all of the above. Without seeing the situation from the perspective of the pedestrian as well, it's hard to gauge whether either or both parties in this incident did their due diligence. It's quite possible that though the posted speed limit is 35, the road and traffic conditions warrant driving slower for you, and pedestrians ought to slow down as well before entering the crosswalk if they're coming out of what you've essentially described as a blind corner.
While the law says one thing, you're screwed if you hit them in a crosswalk and don't have a dash camera.
You had sufficient time/distance to stop and yield so WTF were you honking for? They don’t have to be walking and lay off the “high speed” nonsense, he was likely doing 10mph or less
Legal or not. Right or wrong. You should probably try not to hit pedestrians... I mean don't swerve into the car next to you. I'm just saying atleast hit the brakes XD
Nah, better to just crush them under your giant truck for not following the law. That'll teach em.
I don't think OP is asking whether he'd be permitted to run over the jogger. They're asking whether the jogger was legally justified in taking right of way by jogging into an intersection without yielding. And the answer is no, you can't dart into traffic because you think you have right of way.
Would you feel better if I had said, "While yes it is illegal to just sprint out in front of cars, you as the car should still attempt to avoid hitting the illegal pedestrian"?
Legal or not. Right or wrong. A ped should not blindly run into an intersection, because he will be dead wrong.
I gotta ask. Is hitting the brakes gonna make it any less legal/wrong to run into the road? Cause the guys who respond sure act like it XD
In California the pedestrian does. Just adding a little unfun fact.
The law is stated above. Might want to review it.
Pedestrians are required to look before entering a crosswalk to make sure it’s safe. Also, if the driver had a dash cam showing that the person ran into the street no court is going to find them liable.
In california the onus is on the driver. legally a pedestrian can step into traffic outside of a crosswalk and the driver is still liable
Californian here and I thought this too, but looking it up it says the pedestrian can only jaywalk without consequences if done *safely*. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/vehicle-code/21955/
No jaywalking occurred here
My bad, I misread it.
More reason not to stop and render aid. Dumb ass law.
fucking what..??? Are you saying that law is a reason to commit a hit and run?
All you have to say is you didn’t see anyone. You think everyone that leaves the scene of a fatal hit and run goes to prison? If so I have a bridge to sell you.
Wow you’re a terrible person. Like truly a dirt bag
Yeah aint it cool ? So I would suggest you don’t step out into traffic in California without looking. Because I’m sure not gonna stop.
Imagine bragging about killing someone with your car and running away
Thinking laws will protect you from your own stupidity is truly idiotic. 😂
No law says pedestrians must “look” and “make sure it is safe” Stop making up stuff, quote a real law
Is The Pedestrian Ever At Fault? Pedestrians have a responsibility to act with reasonable care when out on the roads, just like all motor vehicle drivers. And although pedestrians have the right of way and drivers must often yield to their movements, some circumstances may result in a pedestrian sharing some of the fault for an accident. For example, suppose a pedestrian is intoxicated and juts out into the street unexpectedly and without warning. This may lead to the pedestrian sharing some proportion of fault for their own injuries and losses CALIFORNIA PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY: DOES THE PEDESTRIAN ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN CALIFORNIA? Pedestrians do not have the right-of-way when they are jaywalking. This means that they must yield to oncoming vehicles if they are violating traffic rules by crossing against a red light or any other time they would be considered jaywalking. Even when a pedestrian is jaywalking, drivers must still take the proper precautions and take all possible measures to avoid hitting them. If a driver can avoid a collision with a jaywalking pedestrian, they are legally required to do so in California. So if you’ve been wondering, “do jaywalkers have the right of way?” the answer is typically no. Jaywalking refers to crossing a street outside of designated crosswalks or against traffic signals. In California, jaywalking is only illegal in some circumstances. Pedestrians are allowed to cross the street outside of crosswalks, but they must yield the right-of-way to any vehicles that pose an imminent danger. If they fail to follow this rule, a violation can cost up to $200 in fines. Depending on the officer who stops you, you may be issued a warning instead. If a pedestrian is jaywalking and is hit by a vehicle, they will likely not be able to fully recover financial damages due to pure comparative negligence. Pure comparative negligence is a legal principle used by many states to determine liability and damages for an accident. In pure comparative negligence states like California, compensation for an injury can still be awarded even if the plaintiff played some role in causing their own injuries. The amount of compensation the injured pedestrian receives will be reduced based on percentage of fault
Not crossing in a crosswalk is what is commonly referred to as jaywalking and pedestrians do not have the right of way when crossing outside a crosswalk. Which has nothing to do with what I replied to which was about crossing in a crosswalk
If the pedestrian dies who’s going to say they looked? Dead men tell no tales.
Just wait until you’re a pedestrian faced with what are essentially unpalatable choices for road crossing. In many instances I have to physically put myself in the road in order to make the crosswalk available to me. There’s no “waiting by the side for a nice driver to wave you by.” Drivers in almost every situation assume they’re the only folks on the road and that sidewalks are nothing more than a nuisance.
As someone who is frequently a pedestrian, cyclist, and driver, I’m over the top about stopping to let pedestrians cross in crosswalks (I.e. following the law). I regularly get honked at for it and literally could not give fewer fucks. I’m amazed at how many cars will fly through it like they have no obligation at all.
I’m with you. These days I’m a regular runner but I’ve previously been a pedestrian walking to work. I’m amazed at how little attention folks pay to the sidewalk.
Why are you talking to me like I don’t walk places?
Technically they do but this doesn't mean that pedestrian didn't break the law. They jaywalked technically because they didn't make sure it as safe to cross. If they had done this at a green light causing cars to slam on their breaks, it wouldn't have been any different. One time I got a green light and started to go when all of the cars were stopped and within two seconds, I see two women appear out of nowhere and I didn't see them because the big pick up truck next to me was blocking their view from me. I slammed on my breaks fast.
That isn’t jaywalking
It doesn't matter. Try not to hit pedestrians regardless of who has right of way.
Does it matter? The ultimate goal is to not hit a pedestrian regardless of if they are in the wrong or you are in the wrong. I don’t really understand what knowing that the pedestrian doesn’t have the right of way changes for you here
Right? Even if they don't have the right of way, does that mean you just maintain your speed and run them over? Pretty sure it doesn't.
AZ: yield to pedestrians. Also AZ: run into traffic like an idiot, driver not likely to be cited.
There’s a responsibility to cross safely. And if there’s an obstruction to your view you are supposed to slow. As to right of way isn’t the correct question. Are you liable under the circumstances? So can you prove he crossed unsafely. Dash camera can prove that. Pedestrians don’t always have the right of way. If they are waiting and you can safely stop you must. But they cannot legally just jump in front of a moving vehicle. They must first approach and show an intent to cross. Then that intent creates a right to cross in front of vehicles that can safely stop. Emergency braking isn’t considered safely stopping. So he violated the law and if proven would be liable for damages to your vehicle.
This is why I have a dash cam, odds are good that one day someone’s gonna do something really stupid, cause an accident and it’ll be the only way I can save my ass.
Most places, the pedestrian would be in the wrong. However, check your local laws. Some places (like Gatlinburg, TN) have the law setup to where a pedestrian ENTERING the crosswalk gets automatic ROW. YMMV
pedestrians always have the right of way according to the IL rules of the road handbook from when i was 16 😂
Well, he has the right-of-way, but he absolutely has no regard for his safety or the safety of other people.
Makes it fun when you live in an area where drugs are prevalent and they walk like they have a death wish.
Having the right of way will never bring a pedestrian back to life.
Peds always have the right of way, even when they legally don't. Mow down an illegal jaywalker and you still catch a charge. It's stupid but it's the way it is
Get a dash cam. Laws vary by location, so your best answer will come from your local prosecutors office. I would pose the question in very simple terms: Someone runs in front of my vehicle from a blind spot where I don't have time to hit the brakes and avoid hitting them. Will you prosecute me?
In practice, many states have shared/comparative fault... Both parties can be cited, and both parties can incur a percentage of financial damages. How it pans out depends on the available evidence, which is why I run a dashcam whenever possible. Keep in mind, even that tool can be a double edged sword if you're not a careful driver.
in what you described.. you technically had the right of way -- as you didnt see the pedestrian appraching the crosswalk until last second due to the bush blocking the view.. Pedestrian (the runner) -- being dumb.. a lot of times, pedestrians and cyclists act more recklessly on the roads becuase "they have the right of way" complex, so if anything happens between them and a vehicle -- they assume vehicle will automatically be at fault and they'll win a big pay out.. --.-- There are certain moments when they dont always have the right of way all the time.. -- aka any action resulting in being a hazard on the road. Here (Canada) -- its the cyclists... they ride on the road (bike lane far right side) not on the sidewalk.. but they dont obey road rules.... --.-- they act like a vehicle on the road x pedestrian at the same time.. : - they dont stop at stop signs - sometimes they dont stop at red lights... if there is a "safe gap" they will cycle and run red lights... - they act like they have the right of way above anybody else - even pedestrians - even when crosswalk countdown is on for them to cross.... once, i was driving and approaching was a 3 way intersection: my light & opoosit direction traffic - we had the green light.. the 3rd lane (they dont have a light at all -- so they have to wait until safe gap to make left/right turns (no straight) or wait until our light turns red... -- so I'm approaching green light, i see a cyclist on the right (other traffic) without a helmet on, inching into the middle of the intersection wanting to make a left turn.. But my traffic and opposite traffic was busy, as I am getting closer to MY green light... cyclist is in the middle of the intersection and starts making a left turn.. Me and the driver on the other side had to stop for this cyclist.... >.< impeding traffic that had green light..
Yes you were obviously wrong for honking at the pedestrian crossing the street on a crosswalk. If you had time to stop even though you were cruising through an intersection at the speed limit you shouldn't be honking. You should slow down for intersections. It sounds like the intersection has poor visibility, you should have been aware of that and going slower so that you can see that nobody is crossing. Maybe the pedestrian could have also been more cautious but if you had hit them in the crosswalk while driving too fast for the situation as you were, then that would've been your fault.
Physics always wins
If there was any risk of hitting the pedestrian then you weren't in the wrong for honking. If you honked at them after the danger was past and they had already seen they ran out in front of you then it wasn't strictly necessary but also not out of line.
I'm never not amazed at how cavalier some pedestrians are when they literally taunt two-ton machines to hit them. What are you going to gain form this? Because you won't win a lawsuit. What you will win is a lifetime of pain. Some people are just stupid.
pedestrians have right of way 100% of the time. if pedestrians aren't following the laws set forth for pedestrians, they can be charged with that crime, but that doesn't negate the fact they still have right of way against vehicles. let's say a person runs into the street before they're given the walk signal, and you hit them. it is likely that you will both be charged with a crime, one offense doesn't negate the other.
So theoretically I’m going the speed limit and someone who wants to delete themselves purposely waits until I can’t stop and then runs off the sidewalk into my car. That’s a crime by me?
unfortunately, yes. i don’t agree with it, but those are the rules.
No, those are not the rules. See the code section cited elsewhere in this thread. Edited to add: > `(b)` **No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a moving vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard**`.`
they will be charged with that crime, and you will also be charged with failure to yield to a pedestrian. one person’s offense doesn’t negate the other person’s offense.
I may be charged, but my dashcam video will prevent prosecution.
no, that's not how that works at all
Right, this is why we have Jaywalking laws, because pedestrians have the right of way 100% of the time. I don't think "Right of way" means what you think it does. > the legal right of a [pedestrian](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=3d5aec0ebbda9031&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn09AfUK7_Ioht8j_54MJCLSx3q7O2A:1712607710829&q=pedestrian&si=AKbGX_pvY3MWP4azJI0Z_NruCLb8UobgoF8uPafZD0WKu7dyzmqzSvTI6WzKwF03WQF2Eptyr_4LM7Zqw9-rwHYqCm75ZAOBc7F2DIxy_2QKxRJdL9z5-vo%3D&expnd=1), vehicle, or ship to proceed with [precedence](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=3d5aec0ebbda9031&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn09AfUK7_Ioht8j_54MJCLSx3q7O2A:1712607710829&q=precedence&si=AKbGX_pvY3MWP4azJI0Z_NruCLb8PdRN968bOFDX8l1Q7LDzexSdon5DOntJcuMXeZGaXH6rlXBsOSH278RL9VWrwc9j63HR6cQJ5MIKbROtu1O9lFqEp_Y%3D&expnd=1) over others in a particular situation or place. You can't simultaneously break a law saying you can't do something while also having the right of way. That's a direct conflict to what a right of way is.
Generally the pedestrian has the right of way once they have left the curb. Though there may be a law also saying in effect the pedestrian shall not suddenly jump in front of traffic in a dangerous manner. Not saying this is what happened in your case, but frequently at marked trail crossings drivers decline to yield to pedestrians, assuming the pedestrian will wait for the cars to pass. The safe way for the pedestrian to assert right of way is to cautiously step off the curb and be sure the car will stop before proceeding.
Check your local laws, but you might find out that they don’t have the right of way at a crosswalk of that type … We have a very, very busy bike path at crosses main road but people have to get up and walk their bicycles across the road and they do not have the right of way unless they’re walking that bicycle .
The laws of the state do not trump the laws of physics.
Pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way, even if they cross illegally (like on a red light or in the middle of the block). If you happen to hit one while they are crossing, be sure you can prove that 1) you could not see him in time before he entered the road, and 2) that you did not have enough time to stop. It's really the only defense you have. Based on what you said, #1 would be true (he appeared from behind some bushes, and you couldn't see him approach the road, but #2 does not apply since you were able to stop in time and not hit him. So the worst thing that could happen is he flipped you the bird.
Pedestrians do not always have the right of way. This is a myth.
No it's true.
[Here](https://www.johnfoy.com/faqs/georgia-pedestrian-right-of-way-and-jaywalking-state-laws/) is a link to a local attorney where I live. Note the section that says “When a Motorist Has the Right of Way in Georgia”. It lists scenarios in which a pedestrian does *not* have the right of way. Now, show me yours. I showed you mine.
In fairness, Georgia--as with all States--has the common law "duty to exercise due care" which requires all persons to exercise concern for their own safety and to avoid collisions to the extent possible. A layman's explanation of this is that no once can ever "have" right of way. They are merely obligated in some cases to yield it to others. A motorist doesn't "have" right of way over a pedestrian (even with that lawyer's page having that heading) in any case--but neither does the pedestrian "have" right of way over a motorist. In particular for Georgia, see OCGA 40-6-93: >Notwithstanding other provisions of this chapter \[in other words, "***even if the pedestrian is doing something unlawful or the driver has preferential right of way***"\], every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway, shall give warning by sounding his horn when necessary, and shall exercise proper precautions upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated, or intoxicated person.
Sure, but the claim was the pedestrian always has right of way, which is not true.
I agree with you in the literal sense: no one, including pedestrians, ever "has" right of way. However, I agree with MuttJunior in the "what they intended to say" sense: even though a driver may "have" \[read "have" as "not be required by crosswalk law to yield the"\] right of way to a pedestrian, they will still be at fault under the common law unless they can demonstrate the two factors stated.
Sure. My point is “always” is a *lot*. And too many dummies throw themselves on cars expecting a pay day when that’s not how it works.
No it’s not. You know there are 50 different sets of traffic laws for 50 different states, and that’s not counting the laws outside the US
In my province if a pedestrian j walks or crosses illegally and I hit them, I could charge them for damages to my car. So no not always.
So you think it is OK to run them over if they cross the street illegally?
I didn’t say that or even imply it. This is a strawman argument but I’ll answer anyway: No. That’s why pedestrians should look before crossing. Like our parents taught us. I could flip the script and ask if you think it’s okay for pedestrians to just jump out in front of traffic with no consequences, but I’ve been on this tangent long enough
if a pedestrian crosses the street illegal, it is your responsibility as a driver to avoid hitting them if you can. That is "right-of-way" the pedestrian has - They have the right to cross without being hit. It doesn't mean that they can't get a ticket for crossing against the light or jaywalking.
[Here](https://www.johnfoy.com/faqs/georgia-pedestrian-right-of-way-and-jaywalking-state-laws/) is a link to a local attorney where I live. Note the section that says “When a Motorist Has the Right of Way in Georgia”. It lists scenarios in which a pedestrian does *not* have the right of way. Do *you* have a source for *your* claim?
>Do *you* have a source for *your* claim? Obviously, somewhere around the 1st bend of their colon
Yes, I have [a source](https://www.johnfoy.com/faqs/georgia-pedestrian-right-of-way-and-jaywalking-state-laws/). if you read this article, it says EXACTLY what I stated about - The driver of a motor vehicle has to prevent his vehicle from hitting a pedestrian if at all possible. If the pedestrian steps off the curb and the driver can stop in time, they must do so and let the pedestrian cross. That sounds a lot like "right-of-way" to me.
Dude. You posted a source from Georgia. That’s the law *in Georgia*. Notwithstanding the fact that it’s laughable that anyone would hold Georgia up as a national standard to begin with, there are 49 other states with 49 different laws. Calm down.
The claim was “the pedestrian always has right of way”. There were no parameters outside that. 
All 50 states inherited the common law duty to exercise due care. This applies equally to drivers and pedestrians but simply means that in ***ALL*** cases, a person must avoid a collision to the extent possible. P.S. your anti-Georgia bit is silly, given that they are responding to someone with a source ***from Georgia.***
Your own article: ## When a Motorist Has the Right of Way in Georgia A motorist can strike a pedestrian but not be held responsible for the accident. Instances in which this may be the case include: * **A pedestrian steps off a curb or sidewalk**. A pedestrian may suddenly step onto a roadway and get struck by a motorist that does not have enough time to stop their vehicle. * **A pedestrian crosses the road without looking**. It is a pedestrian’s responsibility to look for cars before they cross the road outside of a crosswalk. * **There is an emergency**. A pedestrian is required to yield the right of way to ambulances and other emergency vehicles on public roads. Georgia motorists ***do not always have to yield to pedestrians***. When driving near pedestrians, it is a good idea to proceed with caution. Otherwise, if you travel too close to pedestrians, there is a risk that you could cause a pedestrian accident. I mean, it ***literally*** says pedestrians do not always have the right of way. You should read the whole page before you post something.
...you responded to someone who agreed with the point you are making.
Having the right of way is not a permission slip to hit people It can be a factor in determining liability but not the primary factor If you can safely stop you must stop
They don’t always have the right of way but failure to yield and hitting them can result in the driver being held liable
It would be a great deterrent if legalized tho. Imagine if pedestrians knew there were actual consequences to their sense of entitlement 🤷🏼♀️
You think pedestrians are entitled? Wait until you see drivers.
The amount of times I have almost gotten hit when I have been IN a crosswalk!! Omg
If what were legalized? OP didn't say anything should be legalized. Are you saying it should be legal to run people over who throw you the bird?
No. I’m saying that if not giving pedestrians right of way when they’re breaking the law to begin with would deter more people than if they thought they were protected no matter how stupid they were acting.
I think not giving them the right of way would be running them over...
Only if they don’t get out of the way 🤷🏼♀️