As a pedestrian getting hit by a car, even at slow speed, can mess you up for life. Pedestrians should always ‘walk defensively’ around cars. In the end if you are left with permanent brain damage or paralysis it won’t matter if you had the right of way. Your 175lbs body is no match for a 3000lbs hunk of steel and glass with inertia.
I kinda dated this chick who would literally walk out onto any crosswalk no matter what the traffic was like. It was terrifying. I called her out on it so many times and all she would reply with was that she had the right of way and she will just sue the person who hits her.
It was the most insane logic I have ever heard.
I see people doing this on Victoria all.the.time. It's terrifying. I'm a pretty defensive driver especially around Commercial Drive where there are tons of pedestrians and it's often poorly lit. Despite that I get surprised all the time by people in all black goretex who just stride out into traffic from between two cars. It's incredible.
That was my father
"They'll stop."
"They don't want to run into me."
But then when he was behind the wheel it was;
"Me not stopping is a bigger problem for you than it is for me."
>she would reply with was that she had the right of way and she will just sue the person who hits her.
ICBC: best we can do is offer 25 physiotherapy session and pay for a lifetime of Tylenol. Take it or leave it.
She has no clue how fucked she is if she's hit and injured even if she has the right of way.
Pedestrians crossing at intersections is legal.
From the Motor Vehicle Act:
179 (1)Subject to section 180, the driver of a vehicle must yield the right of way to a pedestrian where traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation when the pedestrian is crossing the highway in a crosswalk and the pedestrian is on the half of the highway on which the vehicle is travelling, or is approaching so closely from the other half of the highway that the pedestrian is in danger.
I had to tell my brother this constantly when we'd go to the gym because he never stopped to turn around and see if there's a car looking to turn into one of the stores or gas stations. Told him it doesn't matter if we're in the right, one day one of these losers are gonna take the wrong risk just to save 2 seconds and he's gonna regret not looking.
Afaik, a pedestrian has the right of way at any crosswalk, which includes any and all intersections that have sidewalks that.... Merge with the road?
Sorry, I've had some wine and can't think of a way to better describe a sidewalk that has the thing you can roll up onto off of a street... Lol.
Iirc, this would be one of those situations.
This is an "unmarked crosswalk." The pedestrian has every right to be there but drivers in Vancouver (and North America generally) have no sense of what they are doing beyond believing it is their right to get where they are going as fast as possible. And police don't exist here so they have no reason to learn the rules of the road. Fucking carbrain central.
[The law generally provides that pedestrians have the right of way when crossing a street in crosswalks, but must generally yield to motor vehicle traffic otherwise.](https://www.preszlerlawbc.com/pedestrian-accident/how-does-the-bc-motor-vehicle-act-affect-pedestrians/#:~:text=The%20law%20generally%20provides%20that,to%20motor%20vehicle%20traffic%20otherwise.)
You are thinking of intersections, where a stopsign is present for an unmarked crosswalk.
Not a 4 lane with a double yellow.
Many pedestrians seem to keep their brains just above their legs, far from their heads.
But if you continue to read that article, it goes on to state that basically it doesn’t matter why a pedestrian is in the road, it is still on the driver to avoid pedestrians..,
“CROSSWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY
The basics of the Act regarding the rights of British Columbia pedestrians and drivers provide that generally a pedestrian has the right of way to cross streets at crosswalks. However, even when a pedestrian is in a crosswalk, he or she may not have the right of way to cross if an approaching vehicle is so close as to be impractical for the driver to yield the right of way.
Although crosswalks are usually marked at intersections, even where an intersection is unmarked, the Motor Vehicle Actprovides that a crosswalk is deemed to exist. When a vehicle slows or stops at a crosswalk to allow a pedestrian to cross the highway, a driver approaching from the rear must not overtake or pass the slowing or stopped vehicle.
When a pedestrian is on the road but not in a crosswalk, drivers must take care to avoid collisions with the pedestrian, give warning by sounding a vehicle’s horn when necessary, and take “proper” precaution if a child or someone confused or incapacitated is on the highway.”
This driver is 100% at fault. Even if that pedestrian was completely in the wrong, it’s still up to the driver to avoid them.
From the Motor Vehicle Act:
179 (1)Subject to section 180, the driver of a vehicle must yield the right of way to a pedestrian where traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation when the pedestrian is crossing the highway in a crosswalk and the pedestrian is on the half of the highway on which the vehicle is travelling, or is approaching so closely from the other half of the highway that the pedestrian is in danger.
My mother-in-law was just killed by a motorcycle - traumatic brain injury. Never gamble against a moving vehicle you will always be wrong, even if your are in the right.
>Pedestrians should always ‘walk defensively’ around cars.
I mean, the driver was stopped at a stop sign, and the pedestrian was rightly watching to make sure the cars approaching the place he was about to be walking were stopping.
The time between the car starting to move after having stopped (long after the pedestrian had started crossing) and the pedestrian being hit is approximately 4 seconds.
I don't know if there's some insane subgroup of redditors who are walking around Vancouver, but I walk a lot and I've never seen anyone compulsively check every possible direction a car could be coming from in a loop continuously as they cross a road, including directions where they have already confirmed there to be stopped cars like some sort of terrified meerkat.
I realize that it seems potentially helpful to say "pedestrians should be careful", and...it's not that that's wrong, but...this driver just fucked up and I kinda resent the implication that the onus is on pedestrians to be more defensive, rather than on drivers (to whom we should give fewer licenses and from whom we should more quickly take them away) and the layout of the city, which is largely designed with the speed of cars rather than safety of pedestrians in mind.
This is a pretty low resolution video, but it looks to me like this guy is a senior citizen (white hair and white beard? I wouldn't swear it wasn't clothing, but I think that's what I'm seeing). We don't want him driving, and he probably can't be a meerkat, and he still deserves to live in a place where he can safely walk to the store—for example the health center and pharmacy on the side of the street he was walking to before being bowled over.
>The pedestrian was invisible to me until they were hit (colours of clothing)
In a washed out dashcam video, fair enough. But his clothing is both contrasting between itself (bright pants, black jacket) and to the building (Cartems, which is red brick ) behind him, and the road. This isn't all black clothing at night time. It's entirely visible clothing.
>and was likely hidden behind the blue car
That's...really not how the cars are oriented? The offending driver, if he had been looking, would have been looking at a clear intersection as he began moving while the pedestrian was crossing. The blue CRV is a few car lengths back from the path of the pedestrian at that point, and the only time it even approached that path was after it had stopped, by which point the offending driver was already past it making that incredibly tight turn.
To say nothing of the fact that the only reason the driver was able to go at all was because the cars in the direction of our PoV stopped to let the pedestrian go, which probably should have been a signal that they were stopped for a reason, being that they didn't have a stop sign.
My husband was hit by an ebike at the flashing crosswalk at Pacific and Bute, and even that resulted in him with a broken elbow. The cars stopped, but the ebike went around them and barreled straight into him. The guy wanted to run away to get to his next food delivery.
Given the damage a 250-ish pound moving object did, I’ve become far less aggressive when crossing streets. As you say, doesn’t matter how right you are if you’re dead or permanently injured.
It amazes me how many pedestrians don't look anywhere except straight while crossing. Unless I'm with multiple other pedestrians crossing, I'm watching every direction an idiot driver could come from, because there are a LOT of people who ought to have their licences surrendered for how they drive
The pedestrian did in fact have the right of way:
>[The Motor Vehicle Act in British Columbia identifies all intersections as unmarked crosswalks if no separate signs or markings are present. Pedestrians at these locations have the right-of-way over vehicular traffic.](https://www.tol.ca/en/building-development/resources/engineering-forms-and-guides/18-536-HDI-Crosswalks.pdf)
They were legally crossing in a straight line at a crosswalk. I don't see what about that makes them seem out of it.
As in the quote above, crosswalks include unmarked crosswalks, or in the exact language from the Motor Vehicle Act, ["the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway"](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section119).
Many pedestrians and cyclists automatically think you've seen them at crosswalks/intersections. I drop off my wife at the 22nd Street Skytrain station, and as I head home, there is a crosswalk. I'm doing less than the speed limit, but there have been multiple occasions where a cyclist screams through, and I'm caught off guard (this crosswalk isn't on the main road but on one of the side streets). It's tough to look left/right for cyclists as trees and other obstructions are in the way.
It's even worse with people on those electric scooters now! They weave on the road, and too often, I've seen them with headphones or earbuds on—they seem oblivious to their surroundings.
That's why there's different rules for bikes vs. pedestrians. There shouldn't be bikes whipping through a crosswalk like that, if there's a stop sign for the cross street they're on they are legally required to stop until it's safe to proceed just like any other traffic.
Bikes move far too quickly to be grouped in with pedestrian traffic, sight lines that are perfectly sufficient to stop in time for someone walking at 6km/h are in no way applicable to bikes moving at 5x that speed. This among the many reasons that riding a bike on a sidewalk is a terrible idea.
And the fucking asshole driver throws his hands up as if this is all a big inconvenience to him. He just possibly killed a dude and this piece of shit is merely ANNOYED.
Anyone with a soul would have been rushing to help the pedestrian, BUT NOT THIS ASSHOLE. Harrowing situations reveal one’s true colours, and this guy outed himself as a fucking sociopathic narcissistic ghoul. Fuck that guy.
this take is on par with body language 'experts' you'd see dissecting celebrity interactions
was he distraught with his own actions ?
was he angry at the pedestrian for crossing the middle of a busy street ?
who knows because we don't see the end of the clip
if he truly didn't care he wouldn't have got out of his car and would've just drove off
I am not surprised by this on two accounts. 1) there are some shit ass impatient drivers in Vancouver 2) my office is a few blocks away so I am often out and about grabbing, lunch, a coffee or a pint and cross at that intersection. It is a death trap, as there is no light there, due to the main and kingsway split. It is a high traffic area and a bit of a walk to the next the next pedestrian crossing, so people often roll the dice and cross this super busy section of main. I am betting it will not be two long till a light goes in their do to the increase of traffic to the area with all the buildings going up.
“Duuude it’s so nice that all the incoming traffic stopped so that I could make my right turn” said driver of black car.
Then Shazam. A body fell out of the sky right into my lane!
definitely overwhelming blame on the driver, but there's at least some partial blame on the pedestrian for crossing in an unexpected location across a busy 6 lane street, and partial blame on city infrastructure
This is the one province I've lived in, well at least city/region, where unmarked pedestrian crosswalks are not respected. I don't know what it is with drivers out here, but if its not explicitly marked, don't expect drivers to stop for you.
Not even normal crosswalks are.
Where clearbrook Hillcrest there's consistently people who are genuinely fucking braindead making left turns. Nearly gotten hit so many times I refuse to cross on that side of the road.
unmarked pedestrian crossings don't make any sense for multi lane roads - for local neighbourhoods ok sure thats slow and only 2 lanes, but across a fucking 6 lane road at higher speeds that's insane and is just exponentially increasing the danger for pedestrians
the onus should always be on the driver, but we also shouldn't be permitting pedestrians crossing wherever they want in poor visibility, high speed areas where there's a perfectly good crosswalk like 100m away
in a perfect world everyone would see and stop for a pedestrian, but this is the real world where we're trying to manage risk
Good thing for that driver that it is mandatory "no fault" liability insurance in BC. In some jurisdictions they could be on the hook for millions as the insurer might shy away from covering obvious dereliction.
I don't mean to disagree at all but rather point out that it is simultaneously true that NOT asserting your right of way is also a major cause of accidents. Be defensive, and make your intentions overwhelmingly obvious!
They waited for traffic to clear on their side of the road and then were hit by a turning vehicle that wasn't looking where they were turning. How are you supposed to defend against that? The driver who hit them caused this crash.
By looking around for idiots and making eye contact with them. If you make eye contact, chances are they see you. If you can't make eye contact, you know they are distracted.
This is an incredibly busy part of vancouver. They call it the funnel for a reason. I would not cross the street like this here, even with a crosswalk unless there are lights, it's pure chaos at the best of times. Drivers in vancouver are absolutely terrible, the city has very poor visibility and this is exactly where all of the cabs, ubers, and evos go through to get to downtown. Nobody bothers to signal, everyone is trying to cut each other off and pull late reds to get their turns and get out of there. I say this as a vancouverite who doesn't have a car and commutes by bus & walks through this area daily.
If you expect right of way as a pedestrian where main & kingsway & broadway meet then you are dreaming. Stepping out around this area at the best of times is risky unless you have lights on your side.
Seems like he was rushing to make that left turn. This is why I don’t bother doing left turns and try to find a different route to merge onto the road if possible when there are multiple lanes you need to watch out for.
Looks like he's actually challenging the oncoming cars to slow down for him... oh fuck, so they did...so the guy wanting to make the left thought he could make it?
It could be the pedestrian actually created a situation where the left-turner thought he could make it past the traffic that was mysteriously slowing down :o
The definition of crosswalk includes ["the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway"](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section119).
Ya but that isn't a highway. That is where the definition fails.
Motor vehicle act:
>(a)a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or
>
>(b)the portion of **a highway** at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway;
If it said portion of a **roadway** instead of **"a highway"**, then it would be different and apply to all roads,
City of Vancouver Street and Traffic bylaw for crossing is this
>Crossing at Other Than Crosswalks. (1) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, shall give the right- of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (2) **No pedestrian shall jaywalk on a roadway**.
If this was the old ICBC, you would just get a good lawyer and it would be done as long as you had the video footage.
Nowadays no fault insurance is....a double edged sword. I guess it is cheaper in the long run, bad for those involved and good for those at fault
>Ya but that isn't a highway.
Yes it is. "Highway" in the [Motor Vehicle Act](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_01#section1) means any public road:
>"highway" includes
>(b)every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, and
The definition of roadway is a bit more specific:
>["roadway" means the portion of the highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, but does not include the shoulder, and if a highway includes 2 or more separate roadways, the term "roadway" refers to any one roadway separately and not to all of them collectively;](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section119)
So highway just means the entire road in general, while roadway means specifically the part used by vehicles, not including the shoulder. It also refers separately to the different parts of a divided highway. So (provincial) Highway 1 consists of at least two separate roadways.
So in cases where being more specific is relevant to what's being described, they may use roadway.
>If it said portion of a roadway instead of "a highway", then it would be different and apply to all roads,
A highway is any road, street, or lane. It's a nomenclature thing.
>The Community Charter defines highways to include streets, roads, lanes, bridges, viaducts and any other way open to public use, other than private rights of way on private property. That includes, for example, sidewalks.
Fucker gets out of his car & instead of going to see if the person is okay he throws up his hands like “fuck me” & goes to the back of his car?
Like dude go see if the person you hit is okay
If you’re driving and didn’t know that this pedestrian did a completely legal thing by crossing where they did, I wonder what other driving laws you don’t know about. This thread is an absolute travesty revealing a huge amount of ignorance. People should have to pass the written learners test every time they renew their driving license.
I live very near this intersection. This is 6th at Main, looking south. Main St divides here, with 2 lanes going leftwards becoming Kingsway, and 2 lanes going straight south continuing down Main, so the crossing here is 4 lanes south, 2 lanes north. One block north is a pedestrian controlled crossing at 5th, and one block south is a pedestrian controlled crossing by the community centre.
During the day, it is insanity to try to cross this intersection as a pedestrian. There's a ton of traffic in every direction, and visibility for drivers is bad. I'm at this intersection very often, as I live down the street. I NEVER cross here, ever. It is always very dangerous, except maybe late at night. I always cross at 5th or 7th. Always.
Amongst all the intersections in Vancouver, this is easily one of the worst for pedestrians. Honestly, I think the city should post no crossing signs here, it's very dangerous.
huh! well considering VIVO was around there and I spent many moons kicking around that area with creative weirdos, seems appropriate. I imagine its days are still numbered though, art pays less rent than condos, despite what Bob Rennie might have to say about art.
The driver is horrible, but what unusual luck that the pedestrian's colors camouflage from this camera's POV. I can't say what it looked like from the driver's POV, but it took me a while to understand what I was looking at when watching this video on mobile with the night mode filter on
I'm from Quebec and I've lived in Vancouver for 5 years now. When learning when to cross the road, we learn: always look both ways before crossing, and only cross where there's a crosswalk. When driving, we learn that pedestrians have the right of way. It is a bit bonkers to me that a pedestrian can cross this busy intersection without a crosswalk, and that drivers tend to not gaf about pedestrians in this city
Yep. While the way this person was crossing the road was technically legal, it was also pretty stupid. No matter what the law says, walking out into traffic is always a bad idea.
I'm not saying the driver is right, but what is this unmarked crossing that people keep talking about? Isn't that just jaywalking? He is crossing in the middle of two traffic lights.
P.S. how come your car cam footage look like a movie in the 90's.
Pedestrian 100% had the right of way in this situation. Anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn't be driving because they don't know the rules of the road. This is an uncontrolled crosswalk. Go back to driving school if you need to know what that means.
I'd say it's shocking to see so many people ignorant of the local laws, but after witnessing the chaos that ensues at a busy intersection when the power goes out, I can't say that is the case.
https://www.peopleslawschool.ca/pedestrian-rights/
There are stop signs on east 6th ave there. Per that link above, there are also some duties for the pedestrian that's crossing the street. Somehow, dawdling around in the middle of the intersection, that too main Street no less, at close to rush hour (3-3:30 pm), without making sure drivers make eye contact with you, seems reckless to say the least. Not to mention that there is a duty on the pedestrian to pay a modicum of attention to the stop signs as well. This could just as easily have been any car on the right lane of the dash cam car, driving 50kmph wondering why everyone in the left lane is stopped.
I personally avoid even making a left at that intersection while driving if there's traffic.
If I was the pedestrian, I probably would’ve walked to the nearest traffic light to cross, or walked across during an obvious gap in both directions of traffic, because I don’t trust any of you people.
If I was the driver, I probably would’ve just circled the block with right turns to avoid having to make a left onto a busy street at an uncontrolled intersection.
Either way, it might be a good time to install traffic signals at more of these little side street intersections.
[Stop signs apply to vehicles only, not pedestrians](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section186). The pedestrian had right of way here and the stop sign is irrelevant. Nothing in your link says otherwise.
They were not dawdling. They were steadily walking across the road until they were hit. You can't make eye contact with a driver on the other side of the road before crossing.
The pedestrian was looking the other way trying to get the drivers to recognize their right of way. They weren't expecting a driver to come from the left side of them and hit them out of nowhere.
As soon as the pedestrian steps off of the curb they have the right of way at an intersection, as long as a driver has time to stop.
The amount of drivers who don't know the basic rules of the road is astounding.
It's an uncontrolled crosswalk. Every intersection is a crosswalk in British Columbia according to the highway traffic act. No markings or lights are required. Pedestrians always have the right of way.
Yea, I’m in Victoria but I think of all the tiny roads that T into Douglas and if you expected cars to stop you’d be waiting forever. You’d never have to walk more than ~one block for a marked crossing and you could likely find a time where the roads clear but it’s definitely not something done where I am.
I imagine all the cars we see driving by before the hit also didn’t stop for this guy and he just waited till it was mostly clear than went.
>There’s no paint or any signs. Can you point them out?
The lack of those things is exactly what makes it an uncontrolled crossing. It is legal to cross and the pedestrian has the right of way even though there is no marking/apparatus.
...that's why they're called unmarked crosswalks...
The pedestrian had the right of way. Using it there and then was a stupid idea, but that was indeed a crosswalk, just like we all have to know about when we get our drivers licenses here.
No, this is two side streets that have a stop sign. There is no walkway at all here. An unmarked crosswalk happens at intersections. Not in the middle of a main street wherever a side street meets it.
> There's no arbitrary size said roads need to be in relation to the roads they intersect.
Just a slight clarification here. An unmarked crosswalk doesn't apply to an intersection with a lane, where a lane is defined in the [Vancouver by-law](http://bylaws.vancouver.ca/2849c.PDF) as being less than 10 metres in width.
Incorrect. As per the BC Motor Vehicle Act:
**"crosswalk"** means
(a) a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or
(b) the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway
6th and Main is an intersection, there is sidewalk on opposites sides in a lateral line.
Lol yes the pedestrian is technically not at fault. But it's sure is their problem now that they choose to walk out into oncoming traffic.
Best case scenario for people that do this kind of stupid things is months of painfull recovery followed by years of going to court to get any kind of pay out from the driver insurance. And that assuming they didn't receive life altering injuries or just straight up die. But I'm sure they will feel comforted know that they had the right away to cross the road in a "uncontrolled" intersection.
I feel like there are a few people in here that are mostly pedestrians and don't drive, and so are trying really hard to get motorists to understand this and that about unmarked intersections and whatever. That's cool and all.
Be as pedantic as you want. It's a nice thing to know what the law technically says, but the way the person in the video tried to cross the street was obviously not smart and put themselves in danger. I hope they are alright, but right of way or not, it was a stupid attempt. Even if you have right of way, if you cross like that, you're a jackass (that being said, cars who try to turn left across really busy dual carriageways from side streets are also jackasses)
In Vancouver, pretty much all the busy roads have a marked intersection and lights to safely cross a block or two away. Just walk to one of those.
> In Vancouver, pretty much all the busy roads have a marked intersection and lights to safely cross a block or two away. Just walk to one of those.
The same could be said to the driver. There is no way in hell I’m taking a left there. I’d rather go a block or two in another direction to get a controlled intersection to safely take a left.
I agree completely, I'm out here judging drivers that try to turn left across busy dual carriageways as well. I'd never do that unless late at night with no traffic.
>I feel like there are a few people in here that are mostly pedestrians and don't drive
Maybe applies to other people here, but I'm a driver. I'm trying to get people to understand the laws because I think it's important as a general concept that we all know and understand the laws as a basic starting point to safely share the roads. Regardless of how risky this may or may not be, drivers still need to be aware of their responsibility.
>It's a nice thing to know what the law technically says
I'm not clear what the "technically" means here. This is the law just as much as stopping for a red light is technically the law.
>Even if you have right of way, if you cross like that, you're a jackass (that being said, cars who try to turn left across really busy dual carriageways from side streets are also jackasses)
The difference is that cars turning left across busy roads *don't* have the right of way, and so if they're doing so in a way that interferes with other people's right of way, then yeah, you could rightfully be annoyed by them. That's not what's happening here though. In this case the *pedestrian* has the right of way, and no one is a jackass for taking their right of way. This comment seems to imply that the pedestrian is annoying or delaying drivers who are legally required to yield to them, but maybe that's not your intent behind it.
As pedestrian always make sure the driver is looking at you, pay attention and don’t trust drivers, there are more and more useless drivers in bc who I have no idea how they got their drivers license!
Legality aside if you walk into a 4 lane roadway with no crosswalk and challenge oncoming vehicles you’re a fucking idiot. The reason everybody is on the drivers side in this thread even when they’re technically legally wrong is because this is a dumbass place to cross a road. You’d think based off of common sense the pedestrian is in the wrong. Yes the driver should’ve checked and yielded but that doesn’t mean you should run onto the highway and expect drivers to yield. The law is so heavily on pedestrians side even when logically you’d think it wouldn’t be is because they’re so much more vulnerable than vehicles.
> Legality aside if you walk into a 4 lane roadway with no crosswalk
That's not what happened here. The pedestrian here was crossing in a legal crosswalk. This is the [definition](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section119) of a crosswalk from the Motor Vehicle Act:
>**"crosswalk"** means
>(a)a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or
>(b)the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway;
In this specific case, the crosswalk is the one defined under part (b).
>this is a dumbass place to cross a road
This is like saying driving through a green light is a dumbass thing to do. Just because you don't like the law or because some people might not agree with it doesn't make it any less the law than any other law.
Ok so I was right. It’s not a crosswalk. It’s an unmarked crosswalk. Not the same thing and as you see in the video, not respected by drivers.
What a false equivalency lmao. That’s absolutely nowhere near saying driving through green light is a stupid thing to do. Driving through a green light is a colloquially understood and accepted behaviour on the road, stepping out into a four-lane roadway, and expecting other drivers to stop for you is not common practice. Doing something unexpected when you’re so vulnerable and just thinking your right of way will protect you is stupid.
> It’s not a crosswalk. It’s an unmarked crosswalk.
An unmarked crosswalk *is* a crosswalk. It's what's defined in part (b) of the definition above.
>Not the same thing
It is the same thing from a legal perspective. Both marked and unmarked crosswalks are legally crosswalks, as in the above definition.
>not respected by drivers
It was respected by drivers in this video. The traffic on Main was stopping to yield to the pedestrian. It was the *turning* vehicle who hit them, something that happens all the time at marked crosswalks too.
You thinking something isn't a common practice doesn't make it any less legal or remove any responsibility from drivers.
What an idiot. What is he looking at? It's almost like he was waiting to get run over. I've been to dozens of countries and Canada has the dumbest pedestrians and worst drivers by far.
They have right of way there. Drivers have to ["yield the right of way to a pedestrian where traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation when the pedestrian is crossing the highway in a crosswalk"](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section179)where crosswalks include ["the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway"](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section119).
Edit: it's concerning that I'm being downvoted for quoting the law. [Pedestrians have right of way at intersections, even when unmarked](https://www.tol.ca/en/building-development/resources/engineering-forms-and-guides/18-536-HDI-Crosswalks.pdf).
you are missing the point. it doesn't matter what the law says as written, the law of physics always wins. Car beats bag of meat and bones every time. As they say the morgue is full of people that had the right of way. The law is wrong and one day will change. I'm sure the person that got hit gets some cold comfort knowing they had the right of way from their hospital bed.
"Highway" in the [Motor Vehicle Act](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_01#section1) that I'm also linking above just means any public road:
>"highway" includes
>(b)every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, and
To get super pedantic Main is also highway 1A where this incident happened (not that it matters - the driver would still be in the wrong no matter if this wasn't).
Yep. The driver is legally at fault most likely. But crossing a road like this is asking to be hit. You don't just walk out into traffic. There are too many things that can go wrong.
I think the pedestrian will be okay but the way they landed but goddamn that’s scary. Could’ve been a lot worse with a pickup truck or flat-fronted SUV.
Driver is to blame 100%. They need to look around the A-pillar when turning left or right.
The driver did follow proper procedures of the road except for missing the final sweep. But why the hell was that guy just walking into the road?
1.) The truck with the trailer stopped to give him some right of way as a kind gesture.
2.) the blue car and/or the car infront slowed down because they didn't want to block the intersection due to the traffic backing up from the red light.
3.) The black camry then squeezed in to the yellow line looking to his right to make sure there is no oncoming traffic, but didn't look to his left until he initiated the turn
4.) he then made the turn and saw the guy right infront of him, tried to swerve and hit him.
That is his biggest mistake is not doing a final sweep to see where he was driving. But at the same time, what the fuck was that guy just doing in the middle of a 6 lane road with no crosswalk?
> what the fuck was that guy just doing in the middle of a 6 lane road with no crosswalk?
Legally crossing the road, with right of way. This is a crosswalk according to the Motor Vehicle Act:
>**119** (1) **"crosswalk"** means
>(b)the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway;
Yeah, the only exception is lanes, defined as less than 10 metres in width in Vancouver by-laws or less than 5 metres in width in the provincial laws. At intersections with those, this rule doesn't apply.
eeesh, doesn't look like the pedestrian/victim was really paying any attention either. Not saying they didn't have the right of way, but you should still be on alert and aware any time you're walking into the middle of a road where cars are driving. Having blind faith in unknown drivers is a fool's choice.
How were they not paying attention? They had their head up and were looking to their right to ensure traffic there was stopping. They were then hit by a driver from their left who had faced a stop.sign. People can only look in one direction at a time.
Pedestrian love to think that just because they have right of way a 3000+ lbs vehicle will stop on a dime for them. Pedestrian gotta start learning to be more aware and cautious around cars.
> vehicle will stop on a dime for them
maybe the driver should've stopped at the stop sign, which would've given him time to notice a pedestrian (or at least slow down enough not to have reaction time) instead of going as quickly as possible then feeling inconvenienced that he almost killed someone
The pedestrian has right of way here and isn't at fault:
>[The Motor Vehicle Act in British Columbia identifies all intersections as unmarked crosswalks if no
separate signs or markings are present. Pedestrians at these locations have the right-of-way over
vehicular traffic.](https://www.tol.ca/en/building-development/resources/engineering-forms-and-guides/18-536-HDI-Crosswalks.pdf)
Per that sure. Maybe he does. There was however a constant flow of traffic and that is an abstract place to decide to cross the road. Hope he recovers quickly.
Darwin: The pedestrian was looking for trouble and found it.
> Per that sure.
Yes, per the law you're supposed to know to operate a vehicle
>There was however a constant flow of traffic
There wasn't. They waited for their side of the road to be clear of traffic before starting to cross. They were then hit by a vehicle turning from another road.
>that is an abstract place to decide to cross the road.
It's not. It's a crosswalk and drivers are supposed to be looking for pedestrians at crosswalks. It's in the guide you're supposed to read when getting your licence..
>The pedestrian was looking for trouble and found it.
They legally crossed the road and were hit by an inattentive turning driver.
Not only that but where was the drivers attention while he was turning? Was he not looking to where he was turning at all?
Stupid place to cross. Interesting to find out about the unmarked crosswalks however.
Legally speaking no, this is not the pedestrian's fault here.
Crossing six lanes of traffic on Main mid-day using an unmarked crosswalk is absolute insanity, just a mind-numbingly stupid idea particularly considering there's a marked crosswalk like a block in either direction. I wouldn't do that for serious money.
But the law says that they can do it and they have the right of way. The driver is going to be at fault.
So yeah, OP has it right...pay attention to your surroundings.
This isn't jaywalking. From the Vancouver by-laws, jaywalking doesn't include unmarked crosswalks:
>[**"Jaywalk"** means to walk across a roadway, other than a lane, a minor street or a portion of a street designated by the City Engineer for the exclusive use of cyclists, at any place that is not a marked or unmarked crosswalk](https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/2849c.PDF)
And this crossing specifically is an unmarked crossing, from the same link:
>**"Crosswalk"** means:
>(b) at an intersection or elsewhere that is not marked for pedestrian crossing
by lines or other markings on the road surface or by a sign, the
portion of a roadway between the extension of the lateral edge of the
roadway and the adjacent lateral property line, but does not include lane
intersections.
Holy fucking ouch
More like holy fucking brain damage
Yeah, and now it's even worse.
Damn...... He ain't gon be in Rush Hour 3!
It's the classic "look right and drive left" maneuver. Don't do that. Very dangerous.
Facts
Jesus, was the pedestrian okay??
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess no.
Ahh I'm going to guess no. Elderly man, lands on melon with full body weight and bounces a couple feet. I think he's more than likely dead, sadly.
As a pedestrian getting hit by a car, even at slow speed, can mess you up for life. Pedestrians should always ‘walk defensively’ around cars. In the end if you are left with permanent brain damage or paralysis it won’t matter if you had the right of way. Your 175lbs body is no match for a 3000lbs hunk of steel and glass with inertia.
I kinda dated this chick who would literally walk out onto any crosswalk no matter what the traffic was like. It was terrifying. I called her out on it so many times and all she would reply with was that she had the right of way and she will just sue the person who hits her. It was the most insane logic I have ever heard.
I see people doing this on Victoria all.the.time. It's terrifying. I'm a pretty defensive driver especially around Commercial Drive where there are tons of pedestrians and it's often poorly lit. Despite that I get surprised all the time by people in all black goretex who just stride out into traffic from between two cars. It's incredible.
I tried to teach my kid that it's always possible to be "dead right". Right of way is no comfort from a stretcher.
That was my father "They'll stop." "They don't want to run into me." But then when he was behind the wheel it was; "Me not stopping is a bigger problem for you than it is for me."
Is there a lawyer that can talk to ghosts?
>she would reply with was that she had the right of way and she will just sue the person who hits her. ICBC: best we can do is offer 25 physiotherapy session and pay for a lifetime of Tylenol. Take it or leave it. She has no clue how fucked she is if she's hit and injured even if she has the right of way.
[удалено]
Pedestrians crossing at intersections is legal. From the Motor Vehicle Act: 179 (1)Subject to section 180, the driver of a vehicle must yield the right of way to a pedestrian where traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation when the pedestrian is crossing the highway in a crosswalk and the pedestrian is on the half of the highway on which the vehicle is travelling, or is approaching so closely from the other half of the highway that the pedestrian is in danger.
That's girl math for you.
A lot of dead people who had the right of way. Means nothing. Keep your head on a swivel peeps.
I had to tell my brother this constantly when we'd go to the gym because he never stopped to turn around and see if there's a car looking to turn into one of the stores or gas stations. Told him it doesn't matter if we're in the right, one day one of these losers are gonna take the wrong risk just to save 2 seconds and he's gonna regret not looking.
Does a pedestrian have the right of way outside of a crosswalk? Or are they jaywalking?
Afaik, a pedestrian has the right of way at any crosswalk, which includes any and all intersections that have sidewalks that.... Merge with the road? Sorry, I've had some wine and can't think of a way to better describe a sidewalk that has the thing you can roll up onto off of a street... Lol. Iirc, this would be one of those situations.
This is an "unmarked crosswalk." The pedestrian has every right to be there but drivers in Vancouver (and North America generally) have no sense of what they are doing beyond believing it is their right to get where they are going as fast as possible. And police don't exist here so they have no reason to learn the rules of the road. Fucking carbrain central.
[The law generally provides that pedestrians have the right of way when crossing a street in crosswalks, but must generally yield to motor vehicle traffic otherwise.](https://www.preszlerlawbc.com/pedestrian-accident/how-does-the-bc-motor-vehicle-act-affect-pedestrians/#:~:text=The%20law%20generally%20provides%20that,to%20motor%20vehicle%20traffic%20otherwise.) You are thinking of intersections, where a stopsign is present for an unmarked crosswalk. Not a 4 lane with a double yellow. Many pedestrians seem to keep their brains just above their legs, far from their heads.
But if you continue to read that article, it goes on to state that basically it doesn’t matter why a pedestrian is in the road, it is still on the driver to avoid pedestrians.., “CROSSWALKS AND PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY The basics of the Act regarding the rights of British Columbia pedestrians and drivers provide that generally a pedestrian has the right of way to cross streets at crosswalks. However, even when a pedestrian is in a crosswalk, he or she may not have the right of way to cross if an approaching vehicle is so close as to be impractical for the driver to yield the right of way. Although crosswalks are usually marked at intersections, even where an intersection is unmarked, the Motor Vehicle Actprovides that a crosswalk is deemed to exist. When a vehicle slows or stops at a crosswalk to allow a pedestrian to cross the highway, a driver approaching from the rear must not overtake or pass the slowing or stopped vehicle. When a pedestrian is on the road but not in a crosswalk, drivers must take care to avoid collisions with the pedestrian, give warning by sounding a vehicle’s horn when necessary, and take “proper” precaution if a child or someone confused or incapacitated is on the highway.” This driver is 100% at fault. Even if that pedestrian was completely in the wrong, it’s still up to the driver to avoid them.
"Curb cut"
Thank you!
From the Motor Vehicle Act: 179 (1)Subject to section 180, the driver of a vehicle must yield the right of way to a pedestrian where traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation when the pedestrian is crossing the highway in a crosswalk and the pedestrian is on the half of the highway on which the vehicle is travelling, or is approaching so closely from the other half of the highway that the pedestrian is in danger.
My mother-in-law was just killed by a motorcycle - traumatic brain injury. Never gamble against a moving vehicle you will always be wrong, even if your are in the right.
>Pedestrians should always ‘walk defensively’ around cars. I mean, the driver was stopped at a stop sign, and the pedestrian was rightly watching to make sure the cars approaching the place he was about to be walking were stopping. The time between the car starting to move after having stopped (long after the pedestrian had started crossing) and the pedestrian being hit is approximately 4 seconds. I don't know if there's some insane subgroup of redditors who are walking around Vancouver, but I walk a lot and I've never seen anyone compulsively check every possible direction a car could be coming from in a loop continuously as they cross a road, including directions where they have already confirmed there to be stopped cars like some sort of terrified meerkat. I realize that it seems potentially helpful to say "pedestrians should be careful", and...it's not that that's wrong, but...this driver just fucked up and I kinda resent the implication that the onus is on pedestrians to be more defensive, rather than on drivers (to whom we should give fewer licenses and from whom we should more quickly take them away) and the layout of the city, which is largely designed with the speed of cars rather than safety of pedestrians in mind. This is a pretty low resolution video, but it looks to me like this guy is a senior citizen (white hair and white beard? I wouldn't swear it wasn't clothing, but I think that's what I'm seeing). We don't want him driving, and he probably can't be a meerkat, and he still deserves to live in a place where he can safely walk to the store—for example the health center and pharmacy on the side of the street he was walking to before being bowled over.
The pedestrian was invisible to me until they were hit (colours of clothing) and was likely hidden behind the blue car
>The pedestrian was invisible to me until they were hit (colours of clothing) In a washed out dashcam video, fair enough. But his clothing is both contrasting between itself (bright pants, black jacket) and to the building (Cartems, which is red brick ) behind him, and the road. This isn't all black clothing at night time. It's entirely visible clothing. >and was likely hidden behind the blue car That's...really not how the cars are oriented? The offending driver, if he had been looking, would have been looking at a clear intersection as he began moving while the pedestrian was crossing. The blue CRV is a few car lengths back from the path of the pedestrian at that point, and the only time it even approached that path was after it had stopped, by which point the offending driver was already past it making that incredibly tight turn. To say nothing of the fact that the only reason the driver was able to go at all was because the cars in the direction of our PoV stopped to let the pedestrian go, which probably should have been a signal that they were stopped for a reason, being that they didn't have a stop sign.
I can see him long before he was hit... he was just casually walking, the driver just wasnt looking in front of him
My husband was hit by an ebike at the flashing crosswalk at Pacific and Bute, and even that resulted in him with a broken elbow. The cars stopped, but the ebike went around them and barreled straight into him. The guy wanted to run away to get to his next food delivery. Given the damage a 250-ish pound moving object did, I’ve become far less aggressive when crossing streets. As you say, doesn’t matter how right you are if you’re dead or permanently injured.
It amazes me how many pedestrians don't look anywhere except straight while crossing. Unless I'm with multiple other pedestrians crossing, I'm watching every direction an idiot driver could come from, because there are a LOT of people who ought to have their licences surrendered for how they drive
I mean in this case he didn't have the right of way. Something was definitely wrong with that guy walking. Like he was really out of it
The pedestrian did in fact have the right of way: >[The Motor Vehicle Act in British Columbia identifies all intersections as unmarked crosswalks if no separate signs or markings are present. Pedestrians at these locations have the right-of-way over vehicular traffic.](https://www.tol.ca/en/building-development/resources/engineering-forms-and-guides/18-536-HDI-Crosswalks.pdf) They were legally crossing in a straight line at a crosswalk. I don't see what about that makes them seem out of it.
Where do you see a cross walk?
What would you say the word "unmarked" means?
As in the quote above, crosswalks include unmarked crosswalks, or in the exact language from the Motor Vehicle Act, ["the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway"](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section119).
Graveyards are filled with people who technically had the right of way.
Sure, doesn't change drivers' legal obligations if pedestrians do legally cross in such situations.
Comment sections are filled with carbrained losers who technically want to justify not having to learn the rules of the road.
Only person really out of it here is you smh
Only person really out of it here is you
Many pedestrians and cyclists automatically think you've seen them at crosswalks/intersections. I drop off my wife at the 22nd Street Skytrain station, and as I head home, there is a crosswalk. I'm doing less than the speed limit, but there have been multiple occasions where a cyclist screams through, and I'm caught off guard (this crosswalk isn't on the main road but on one of the side streets). It's tough to look left/right for cyclists as trees and other obstructions are in the way. It's even worse with people on those electric scooters now! They weave on the road, and too often, I've seen them with headphones or earbuds on—they seem oblivious to their surroundings.
That's why there's different rules for bikes vs. pedestrians. There shouldn't be bikes whipping through a crosswalk like that, if there's a stop sign for the cross street they're on they are legally required to stop until it's safe to proceed just like any other traffic. Bikes move far too quickly to be grouped in with pedestrian traffic, sight lines that are perfectly sufficient to stop in time for someone walking at 6km/h are in no way applicable to bikes moving at 5x that speed. This among the many reasons that riding a bike on a sidewalk is a terrible idea.
If only the cyclist knew that.
And the fucking asshole driver throws his hands up as if this is all a big inconvenience to him. He just possibly killed a dude and this piece of shit is merely ANNOYED.
I can’t believe this is the only comment about this, I thought the exact same thing. Crazy
Anyone with a soul would have been rushing to help the pedestrian, BUT NOT THIS ASSHOLE. Harrowing situations reveal one’s true colours, and this guy outed himself as a fucking sociopathic narcissistic ghoul. Fuck that guy.
A lot of people freeze when shocked
He really shouldn't be shocked, surely he knows that he drives like an asshole.
I know. He gets out of the car and, instead of rushing to the person he hit, he heads around the back of his car?!
Maybe to grab something from the trunk to finish the pedestrian off.
That looks like " FUCK not again"
Yeah this was my take. The driver who hit the pedestrian doesn't look concerned, he looks pissed off that a pedestrian would be in his path.
100% my thought as well
this take is on par with body language 'experts' you'd see dissecting celebrity interactions was he distraught with his own actions ? was he angry at the pedestrian for crossing the middle of a busy street ? who knows because we don't see the end of the clip if he truly didn't care he wouldn't have got out of his car and would've just drove off
I am not surprised by this on two accounts. 1) there are some shit ass impatient drivers in Vancouver 2) my office is a few blocks away so I am often out and about grabbing, lunch, a coffee or a pint and cross at that intersection. It is a death trap, as there is no light there, due to the main and kingsway split. It is a high traffic area and a bit of a walk to the next the next pedestrian crossing, so people often roll the dice and cross this super busy section of main. I am betting it will not be two long till a light goes in their do to the increase of traffic to the area with all the buildings going up.
>a bit of a walk to the next the next pedestrian crossing There's a crossing in front of the library 60m away...
Yes and one on 5th with pedestrian controlled lights. The guy crossing here at a VERY busy cross street had numerous safe options to cross.
was he okay?
“Duuude it’s so nice that all the incoming traffic stopped so that I could make my right turn” said driver of black car. Then Shazam. A body fell out of the sky right into my lane!
He turned left I think?
Damn it, you are correct. Smh
If you’re turning left the onus is on you to do it safely because you are going to be at fault in pretty much any situation.
Abso-fucking-lutely. Can't believe people putting any blame on the pedestrian. Total fault goes to the driver.
definitely overwhelming blame on the driver, but there's at least some partial blame on the pedestrian for crossing in an unexpected location across a busy 6 lane street, and partial blame on city infrastructure
Did I just witness a death
Wow, it's good he did a 270 and not just a 180 and landed on his head.
This is the one province I've lived in, well at least city/region, where unmarked pedestrian crosswalks are not respected. I don't know what it is with drivers out here, but if its not explicitly marked, don't expect drivers to stop for you.
Not even normal crosswalks are. Where clearbrook Hillcrest there's consistently people who are genuinely fucking braindead making left turns. Nearly gotten hit so many times I refuse to cross on that side of the road.
unmarked pedestrian crossings don't make any sense for multi lane roads - for local neighbourhoods ok sure thats slow and only 2 lanes, but across a fucking 6 lane road at higher speeds that's insane and is just exponentially increasing the danger for pedestrians the onus should always be on the driver, but we also shouldn't be permitting pedestrians crossing wherever they want in poor visibility, high speed areas where there's a perfectly good crosswalk like 100m away in a perfect world everyone would see and stop for a pedestrian, but this is the real world where we're trying to manage risk
Wow, majority of the people showing no concern regarding the pedestrian! Way to go, folks! P.S. I hope the pedestrian is okay. It did not look good…
Good thing for that driver that it is mandatory "no fault" liability insurance in BC. In some jurisdictions they could be on the hook for millions as the insurer might shy away from covering obvious dereliction.
Asserting your right of way is a major cause of accidents. Be defensive.
I don't mean to disagree at all but rather point out that it is simultaneously true that NOT asserting your right of way is also a major cause of accidents. Be defensive, and make your intentions overwhelmingly obvious!
They waited for traffic to clear on their side of the road and then were hit by a turning vehicle that wasn't looking where they were turning. How are you supposed to defend against that? The driver who hit them caused this crash.
By looking around for idiots and making eye contact with them. If you make eye contact, chances are they see you. If you can't make eye contact, you know they are distracted.
Guy was looking right for oncoming traffic on the other side of the street. The idiot turning totally at fault.
In general yeah, but when you're halfway across the road and someone decides to turn into you, there's not much eye contact is going to achieve.
This is an incredibly busy part of vancouver. They call it the funnel for a reason. I would not cross the street like this here, even with a crosswalk unless there are lights, it's pure chaos at the best of times. Drivers in vancouver are absolutely terrible, the city has very poor visibility and this is exactly where all of the cabs, ubers, and evos go through to get to downtown. Nobody bothers to signal, everyone is trying to cut each other off and pull late reds to get their turns and get out of there. I say this as a vancouverite who doesn't have a car and commutes by bus & walks through this area daily.
Was there a crosswalk or light there? When I watched it I thought the pedestrian just tried to jaywalk
It's an unmarked crosswalk.
[удалено]
If you expect right of way as a pedestrian where main & kingsway & broadway meet then you are dreaming. Stepping out around this area at the best of times is risky unless you have lights on your side.
Right of way does not prevent injury
Thanks Captain Obvious
Holy crap I hope the guy is OK
Seems like he was rushing to make that left turn. This is why I don’t bother doing left turns and try to find a different route to merge onto the road if possible when there are multiple lanes you need to watch out for.
3 rights make a left!
He was making the turn because he thought all the lanes of traffic were stopping for him.
[удалено]
Looks like he's actually challenging the oncoming cars to slow down for him... oh fuck, so they did...so the guy wanting to make the left thought he could make it? It could be the pedestrian actually created a situation where the left-turner thought he could make it past the traffic that was mysteriously slowing down :o
[удалено]
Yeah man I hate this. I think car manufacturers should do something about it, like make it transparent or something dunno
They waited for a break in traffic on their side of the road and then started crossing, which they have the right of way to do.
But there’s no crosswalk there?
The definition of crosswalk includes ["the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway"](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section119).
Ah thanks that’s good to know!
Ya but that isn't a highway. That is where the definition fails. Motor vehicle act: >(a)a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or > >(b)the portion of **a highway** at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway; If it said portion of a **roadway** instead of **"a highway"**, then it would be different and apply to all roads, City of Vancouver Street and Traffic bylaw for crossing is this >Crossing at Other Than Crosswalks. (1) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, shall give the right- of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (2) **No pedestrian shall jaywalk on a roadway**. If this was the old ICBC, you would just get a good lawyer and it would be done as long as you had the video footage. Nowadays no fault insurance is....a double edged sword. I guess it is cheaper in the long run, bad for those involved and good for those at fault
>Ya but that isn't a highway. Yes it is. "Highway" in the [Motor Vehicle Act](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_01#section1) means any public road: >"highway" includes >(b)every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, and
Wow you are right !! So why even differentiate between a roadway and a highway in that section, if highway means roadway?
The definition of roadway is a bit more specific: >["roadway" means the portion of the highway that is improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic, but does not include the shoulder, and if a highway includes 2 or more separate roadways, the term "roadway" refers to any one roadway separately and not to all of them collectively;](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section119) So highway just means the entire road in general, while roadway means specifically the part used by vehicles, not including the shoulder. It also refers separately to the different parts of a divided highway. So (provincial) Highway 1 consists of at least two separate roadways. So in cases where being more specific is relevant to what's being described, they may use roadway.
>If it said portion of a roadway instead of "a highway", then it would be different and apply to all roads, A highway is any road, street, or lane. It's a nomenclature thing. >The Community Charter defines highways to include streets, roads, lanes, bridges, viaducts and any other way open to public use, other than private rights of way on private property. That includes, for example, sidewalks.
“Unmarked” - it literally says _other_ than a marked or unmarked crosswalk is called jaywalking
“Unmarked” - in the City of Vancouver bylaw you cited it literally says _other_ than a marked or unmarked crosswalk is called jaywalking
It’s also legal to eat broken glass … do people do that? WHO in their right mind is like hey I’m just gonna run into 7 lane traffic on Kingsway/Main.
Fucker gets out of his car & instead of going to see if the person is okay he throws up his hands like “fuck me” & goes to the back of his car? Like dude go see if the person you hit is okay
If you’re driving and didn’t know that this pedestrian did a completely legal thing by crossing where they did, I wonder what other driving laws you don’t know about. This thread is an absolute travesty revealing a huge amount of ignorance. People should have to pass the written learners test every time they renew their driving license.
I live very near this intersection. This is 6th at Main, looking south. Main St divides here, with 2 lanes going leftwards becoming Kingsway, and 2 lanes going straight south continuing down Main, so the crossing here is 4 lanes south, 2 lanes north. One block north is a pedestrian controlled crossing at 5th, and one block south is a pedestrian controlled crossing by the community centre. During the day, it is insanity to try to cross this intersection as a pedestrian. There's a ton of traffic in every direction, and visibility for drivers is bad. I'm at this intersection very often, as I live down the street. I NEVER cross here, ever. It is always very dangerous, except maybe late at night. I always cross at 5th or 7th. Always. Amongst all the intersections in Vancouver, this is easily one of the worst for pedestrians. Honestly, I think the city should post no crossing signs here, it's very dangerous.
Frankly I am astonished the City Centre Motor Hotel is still there!
It's not a motel anymore but they kept the building. It's an artists for rent space or something like that.
huh! well considering VIVO was around there and I spent many moons kicking around that area with creative weirdos, seems appropriate. I imagine its days are still numbered though, art pays less rent than condos, despite what Bob Rennie might have to say about art.
I'm pretty sure its protected by the city. It's not a for profit operation.
fingers crossed, from my four decades in that city it seemed like no building lasts forever! except maybe the sun tower and the marine building :-)
If the pedestrian dies can the driver be charged with manslaughter? It makes me cringe that the driver didn’t rush to see if they were ok.
Yes. Driver made a dangerous left turn that resulted in a collision with pedestrian, who technically had the right of way.
The driver is horrible, but what unusual luck that the pedestrian's colors camouflage from this camera's POV. I can't say what it looked like from the driver's POV, but it took me a while to understand what I was looking at when watching this video on mobile with the night mode filter on
I'm from Quebec and I've lived in Vancouver for 5 years now. When learning when to cross the road, we learn: always look both ways before crossing, and only cross where there's a crosswalk. When driving, we learn that pedestrians have the right of way. It is a bit bonkers to me that a pedestrian can cross this busy intersection without a crosswalk, and that drivers tend to not gaf about pedestrians in this city
Yep. While the way this person was crossing the road was technically legal, it was also pretty stupid. No matter what the law says, walking out into traffic is always a bad idea.
I'm not saying the driver is right, but what is this unmarked crossing that people keep talking about? Isn't that just jaywalking? He is crossing in the middle of two traffic lights. P.S. how come your car cam footage look like a movie in the 90's.
I shouldn't have laughed I assume
Pedestrian 100% had the right of way in this situation. Anyone who thinks otherwise shouldn't be driving because they don't know the rules of the road. This is an uncontrolled crosswalk. Go back to driving school if you need to know what that means.
I'd say it's shocking to see so many people ignorant of the local laws, but after witnessing the chaos that ensues at a busy intersection when the power goes out, I can't say that is the case.
https://www.peopleslawschool.ca/pedestrian-rights/ There are stop signs on east 6th ave there. Per that link above, there are also some duties for the pedestrian that's crossing the street. Somehow, dawdling around in the middle of the intersection, that too main Street no less, at close to rush hour (3-3:30 pm), without making sure drivers make eye contact with you, seems reckless to say the least. Not to mention that there is a duty on the pedestrian to pay a modicum of attention to the stop signs as well. This could just as easily have been any car on the right lane of the dash cam car, driving 50kmph wondering why everyone in the left lane is stopped. I personally avoid even making a left at that intersection while driving if there's traffic.
If I was the pedestrian, I probably would’ve walked to the nearest traffic light to cross, or walked across during an obvious gap in both directions of traffic, because I don’t trust any of you people. If I was the driver, I probably would’ve just circled the block with right turns to avoid having to make a left onto a busy street at an uncontrolled intersection. Either way, it might be a good time to install traffic signals at more of these little side street intersections.
[Stop signs apply to vehicles only, not pedestrians](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section186). The pedestrian had right of way here and the stop sign is irrelevant. Nothing in your link says otherwise. They were not dawdling. They were steadily walking across the road until they were hit. You can't make eye contact with a driver on the other side of the road before crossing.
The pedestrian was looking the other way trying to get the drivers to recognize their right of way. They weren't expecting a driver to come from the left side of them and hit them out of nowhere. As soon as the pedestrian steps off of the curb they have the right of way at an intersection, as long as a driver has time to stop. The amount of drivers who don't know the basic rules of the road is astounding.
Huh I did not know that! Good to know
I don’t see a crosswalk at all. There’s no paint or any signs. Can you point them out?
It's an uncontrolled crosswalk. Every intersection is a crosswalk in British Columbia according to the highway traffic act. No markings or lights are required. Pedestrians always have the right of way.
Even at a busy two way stop? I never see cars stop at these if there’s no markings.
Yes, even at a two way stop. I know most drivers don't stop. A lot of drivers don't follow the rules of the road.
Yea, I’m in Victoria but I think of all the tiny roads that T into Douglas and if you expected cars to stop you’d be waiting forever. You’d never have to walk more than ~one block for a marked crossing and you could likely find a time where the roads clear but it’s definitely not something done where I am. I imagine all the cars we see driving by before the hit also didn’t stop for this guy and he just waited till it was mostly clear than went.
You shouldn't have to wait forever if drivers actually obeyed the law though.
>There’s no paint or any signs. Can you point them out? The lack of those things is exactly what makes it an uncontrolled crossing. It is legal to cross and the pedestrian has the right of way even though there is no marking/apparatus.
...that's why they're called unmarked crosswalks... The pedestrian had the right of way. Using it there and then was a stupid idea, but that was indeed a crosswalk, just like we all have to know about when we get our drivers licenses here.
No, this is two side streets that have a stop sign. There is no walkway at all here. An unmarked crosswalk happens at intersections. Not in the middle of a main street wherever a side street meets it.
An intersection is where two roads intersect. There's no arbitrary size said roads need to be in relation to the roads they intersect.
> There's no arbitrary size said roads need to be in relation to the roads they intersect. Just a slight clarification here. An unmarked crosswalk doesn't apply to an intersection with a lane, where a lane is defined in the [Vancouver by-law](http://bylaws.vancouver.ca/2849c.PDF) as being less than 10 metres in width.
That's actually a very good point. Thank you.
Incorrect. As per the BC Motor Vehicle Act: **"crosswalk"** means (a) a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or (b) the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway 6th and Main is an intersection, there is sidewalk on opposites sides in a lateral line.
Lol yes the pedestrian is technically not at fault. But it's sure is their problem now that they choose to walk out into oncoming traffic. Best case scenario for people that do this kind of stupid things is months of painfull recovery followed by years of going to court to get any kind of pay out from the driver insurance. And that assuming they didn't receive life altering injuries or just straight up die. But I'm sure they will feel comforted know that they had the right away to cross the road in a "uncontrolled" intersection.
You can't sue someone if you're dead... Assume every car driver on the road is an idiot and you will almost never get hit as a pedestrian.
Ok so , how bad is the video? as I’m a little squeamish but also want to see it. But don’t want to see someone really hurt or dead is it safe ?
It's not gory as in blood, but it is shocking and violent. A vehicle strikes a pedestrian, who is tossed and flipped like a doll.
Tbh I didn't see that person until they got hit. That outfit blended into the street and background buildings PERFECTLY from that dash cam angle
I feel like there are a few people in here that are mostly pedestrians and don't drive, and so are trying really hard to get motorists to understand this and that about unmarked intersections and whatever. That's cool and all. Be as pedantic as you want. It's a nice thing to know what the law technically says, but the way the person in the video tried to cross the street was obviously not smart and put themselves in danger. I hope they are alright, but right of way or not, it was a stupid attempt. Even if you have right of way, if you cross like that, you're a jackass (that being said, cars who try to turn left across really busy dual carriageways from side streets are also jackasses) In Vancouver, pretty much all the busy roads have a marked intersection and lights to safely cross a block or two away. Just walk to one of those.
> In Vancouver, pretty much all the busy roads have a marked intersection and lights to safely cross a block or two away. Just walk to one of those. The same could be said to the driver. There is no way in hell I’m taking a left there. I’d rather go a block or two in another direction to get a controlled intersection to safely take a left.
I agree completely, I'm out here judging drivers that try to turn left across busy dual carriageways as well. I'd never do that unless late at night with no traffic.
>I feel like there are a few people in here that are mostly pedestrians and don't drive Maybe applies to other people here, but I'm a driver. I'm trying to get people to understand the laws because I think it's important as a general concept that we all know and understand the laws as a basic starting point to safely share the roads. Regardless of how risky this may or may not be, drivers still need to be aware of their responsibility. >It's a nice thing to know what the law technically says I'm not clear what the "technically" means here. This is the law just as much as stopping for a red light is technically the law. >Even if you have right of way, if you cross like that, you're a jackass (that being said, cars who try to turn left across really busy dual carriageways from side streets are also jackasses) The difference is that cars turning left across busy roads *don't* have the right of way, and so if they're doing so in a way that interferes with other people's right of way, then yeah, you could rightfully be annoyed by them. That's not what's happening here though. In this case the *pedestrian* has the right of way, and no one is a jackass for taking their right of way. This comment seems to imply that the pedestrian is annoying or delaying drivers who are legally required to yield to them, but maybe that's not your intent behind it.
The driver taking a left there was also not smart, and put others in danger.
As pedestrian always make sure the driver is looking at you, pay attention and don’t trust drivers, there are more and more useless drivers in bc who I have no idea how they got their drivers license!
Legality aside if you walk into a 4 lane roadway with no crosswalk and challenge oncoming vehicles you’re a fucking idiot. The reason everybody is on the drivers side in this thread even when they’re technically legally wrong is because this is a dumbass place to cross a road. You’d think based off of common sense the pedestrian is in the wrong. Yes the driver should’ve checked and yielded but that doesn’t mean you should run onto the highway and expect drivers to yield. The law is so heavily on pedestrians side even when logically you’d think it wouldn’t be is because they’re so much more vulnerable than vehicles.
> Legality aside if you walk into a 4 lane roadway with no crosswalk That's not what happened here. The pedestrian here was crossing in a legal crosswalk. This is the [definition](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section119) of a crosswalk from the Motor Vehicle Act: >**"crosswalk"** means >(a)a portion of the roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or >(b)the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway; In this specific case, the crosswalk is the one defined under part (b). >this is a dumbass place to cross a road This is like saying driving through a green light is a dumbass thing to do. Just because you don't like the law or because some people might not agree with it doesn't make it any less the law than any other law.
Ok so I was right. It’s not a crosswalk. It’s an unmarked crosswalk. Not the same thing and as you see in the video, not respected by drivers. What a false equivalency lmao. That’s absolutely nowhere near saying driving through green light is a stupid thing to do. Driving through a green light is a colloquially understood and accepted behaviour on the road, stepping out into a four-lane roadway, and expecting other drivers to stop for you is not common practice. Doing something unexpected when you’re so vulnerable and just thinking your right of way will protect you is stupid.
> It’s not a crosswalk. It’s an unmarked crosswalk. An unmarked crosswalk *is* a crosswalk. It's what's defined in part (b) of the definition above. >Not the same thing It is the same thing from a legal perspective. Both marked and unmarked crosswalks are legally crosswalks, as in the above definition. >not respected by drivers It was respected by drivers in this video. The traffic on Main was stopping to yield to the pedestrian. It was the *turning* vehicle who hit them, something that happens all the time at marked crosswalks too. You thinking something isn't a common practice doesn't make it any less legal or remove any responsibility from drivers.
What an idiot. What is he looking at? It's almost like he was waiting to get run over. I've been to dozens of countries and Canada has the dumbest pedestrians and worst drivers by far.
[удалено]
They have right of way there. Drivers have to ["yield the right of way to a pedestrian where traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation when the pedestrian is crossing the highway in a crosswalk"](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section179)where crosswalks include ["the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway"](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_05#section119). Edit: it's concerning that I'm being downvoted for quoting the law. [Pedestrians have right of way at intersections, even when unmarked](https://www.tol.ca/en/building-development/resources/engineering-forms-and-guides/18-536-HDI-Crosswalks.pdf).
you are missing the point. it doesn't matter what the law says as written, the law of physics always wins. Car beats bag of meat and bones every time. As they say the morgue is full of people that had the right of way. The law is wrong and one day will change. I'm sure the person that got hit gets some cold comfort knowing they had the right of way from their hospital bed.
I'm not missing any point here. I replied to a comment falsely stating they didn't have right of way here with the law showing they do.
It’s not a highway? Is that just poorly written or is the piece you’re mentioning only applied to highways?
"Highway" in the [Motor Vehicle Act](https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96318_01#section1) that I'm also linking above just means any public road: >"highway" includes >(b)every road, street, lane or right of way designed or intended for or used by the general public for the passage of vehicles, and
… is crossing the “highway”?
To get super pedantic Main is also highway 1A where this incident happened (not that it matters - the driver would still be in the wrong no matter if this wasn't).
They're crossing a highway here. Highway in legal terminology is just a public road.
[удалено]
Yep. The driver is legally at fault most likely. But crossing a road like this is asking to be hit. You don't just walk out into traffic. There are too many things that can go wrong.
Is the driver going to his trunk to get a baseball bat and beat the pedestrian to death for ruining his day??
I think the pedestrian will be okay but the way they landed but goddamn that’s scary. Could’ve been a lot worse with a pickup truck or flat-fronted SUV. Driver is to blame 100%. They need to look around the A-pillar when turning left or right.
The driver did follow proper procedures of the road except for missing the final sweep. But why the hell was that guy just walking into the road? 1.) The truck with the trailer stopped to give him some right of way as a kind gesture. 2.) the blue car and/or the car infront slowed down because they didn't want to block the intersection due to the traffic backing up from the red light. 3.) The black camry then squeezed in to the yellow line looking to his right to make sure there is no oncoming traffic, but didn't look to his left until he initiated the turn 4.) he then made the turn and saw the guy right infront of him, tried to swerve and hit him. That is his biggest mistake is not doing a final sweep to see where he was driving. But at the same time, what the fuck was that guy just doing in the middle of a 6 lane road with no crosswalk?
> what the fuck was that guy just doing in the middle of a 6 lane road with no crosswalk? Legally crossing the road, with right of way. This is a crosswalk according to the Motor Vehicle Act: >**119** (1) **"crosswalk"** means >(b)the portion of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway;
Ooo thank you. I learned apparently all roads are crosswalks....which is pretty crazy.
Yeah, the only exception is lanes, defined as less than 10 metres in width in Vancouver by-laws or less than 5 metres in width in the provincial laws. At intersections with those, this rule doesn't apply.
eeesh, doesn't look like the pedestrian/victim was really paying any attention either. Not saying they didn't have the right of way, but you should still be on alert and aware any time you're walking into the middle of a road where cars are driving. Having blind faith in unknown drivers is a fool's choice.
How were they not paying attention? They had their head up and were looking to their right to ensure traffic there was stopping. They were then hit by a driver from their left who had faced a stop.sign. People can only look in one direction at a time.
Pedestrian love to think that just because they have right of way a 3000+ lbs vehicle will stop on a dime for them. Pedestrian gotta start learning to be more aware and cautious around cars.
> vehicle will stop on a dime for them maybe the driver should've stopped at the stop sign, which would've given him time to notice a pedestrian (or at least slow down enough not to have reaction time) instead of going as quickly as possible then feeling inconvenienced that he almost killed someone
100% pedestrians fault. But that person will have the guilt forever
The pedestrian has right of way here and isn't at fault: >[The Motor Vehicle Act in British Columbia identifies all intersections as unmarked crosswalks if no separate signs or markings are present. Pedestrians at these locations have the right-of-way over vehicular traffic.](https://www.tol.ca/en/building-development/resources/engineering-forms-and-guides/18-536-HDI-Crosswalks.pdf)
Per that sure. Maybe he does. There was however a constant flow of traffic and that is an abstract place to decide to cross the road. Hope he recovers quickly. Darwin: The pedestrian was looking for trouble and found it.
> Per that sure. Yes, per the law you're supposed to know to operate a vehicle >There was however a constant flow of traffic There wasn't. They waited for their side of the road to be clear of traffic before starting to cross. They were then hit by a vehicle turning from another road. >that is an abstract place to decide to cross the road. It's not. It's a crosswalk and drivers are supposed to be looking for pedestrians at crosswalks. It's in the guide you're supposed to read when getting your licence.. >The pedestrian was looking for trouble and found it. They legally crossed the road and were hit by an inattentive turning driver.
Not only that but where was the drivers attention while he was turning? Was he not looking to where he was turning at all? Stupid place to cross. Interesting to find out about the unmarked crosswalks however.
Legally speaking no, this is not the pedestrian's fault here. Crossing six lanes of traffic on Main mid-day using an unmarked crosswalk is absolute insanity, just a mind-numbingly stupid idea particularly considering there's a marked crosswalk like a block in either direction. I wouldn't do that for serious money. But the law says that they can do it and they have the right of way. The driver is going to be at fault. So yeah, OP has it right...pay attention to your surroundings.
[удалено]
This isn't jaywalking. From the Vancouver by-laws, jaywalking doesn't include unmarked crosswalks: >[**"Jaywalk"** means to walk across a roadway, other than a lane, a minor street or a portion of a street designated by the City Engineer for the exclusive use of cyclists, at any place that is not a marked or unmarked crosswalk](https://bylaws.vancouver.ca/2849c.PDF) And this crossing specifically is an unmarked crossing, from the same link: >**"Crosswalk"** means: >(b) at an intersection or elsewhere that is not marked for pedestrian crossing by lines or other markings on the road surface or by a sign, the portion of a roadway between the extension of the lateral edge of the roadway and the adjacent lateral property line, but does not include lane intersections.