Yielding on Yield
In New Jersey, you now have to come to a complete stop, rather than simply “yield,” when pedestrians are in the crosswalk.
Why?
New Jersey has one of the highest rates of pedestrian fatalities in the country, with 27 percent of auto fatalities in 2008 involving pedestrians, almost twice the national rate, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Must be all those jaywalking pedestrians, no? Not quite. Rather drivers, and this will surprise no readers of this blog, seemed to show a shocking disregard — or complete lack of knowledge — of the actual law.
Last year, Cherry Hill police set up crosswalk stings, in which officers, in some cases pushing baby strollers, would step out into a crosswalk as cars approached. Over six days, officers handed out 249 tickets and arrested one man who became irate when cited by police, Rann said.
“People would just drive right around the carriage,” he said. “It’s a matter of handing out more tickets. It gets the word out, and people start to comply.”
Another dispatch notes:
A potentially controversial part of the law says that if a driver hits a pedestrian in a crosswalk, the presumption of fault lies with the driver for not taking “due care” for the safety of the pedestrian.
What’s controversial to my mind in this case is presuming fault on anyone but the driver.
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[MySpace]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Slashdot]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/slashdot.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.howwedrive.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
This entry was posted on Monday, April 5th, 2010 at 5:07 pm and is filed under Traffic safety. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
| 
April 5th, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Sounds familiar…tried to get a similar change passed in Illinois last year. It didn’t happen.
April 5th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
I live near a moderately busy four lane surface street. Near my house there’s a signal and a middle island, so crossing is pretty easy. Further to the east there are stretches of a few blocks with no signals or island, only crosswalks, and you take your life in your hands trying to cross during rush hour. Someone will see you waiting and stop at the crosswalk, but the car in the next lane over just blows by, not even noticing.
Several years ago the local school district made the mistake of planning a route in which kids who lived in an apartment complex on the road got dropped off on the other side of the street, at the crosswalk. That lasted all of 3 weeks or so, as more often then not, 3 of the four lanes of traffic ignored the bus’s four-ways and stop arm.
Yeah, the problem is rarely with the pedestrians.
April 5th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
A related story out of Glendale California: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/04/police-sting-involving-rabbit-costume-sparks-criticism-in-glendale.html
Rather than pushing baby strollers, the cops dressed a person in a bunny suit as part of a sting operation to catch drivers who failed to yield. Apparently they took a lot of flack for doing it. I do wonder how many drivers never saw the bunny, though. We had “the invisible gorilla” blog about that one on our site.
April 6th, 2010 at 5:57 am
Here in Ontario, drivers are legally assumed to be always at fault unless they can prove otherwise. Here is Section 193 of Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act:
“When loss or damage is sustained by any person by reason of a motor vehicle on a highway, the onus of proof that the loss or damage did not arise through the negligence or improper conduct of the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle is upon the owner, driver, lessee or operator of the motor vehicle.”
Source:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK291
April 6th, 2010 at 7:49 am
There are many more variables beyond this… particularly the multithreat scenario (defined below), of which New Jersey’s multitude of uncontrolled multilane (crossing more than one lane in a given direction) marked crosswalks only encourages such conditions. A change in the law from “yield” to “stop” is highly unlikely to have any significant affect unless the State considers the *design* of their crossings first.
Regardless of the law, I flat-out refuse to give way at a crosswalk traversing 3 or more lanes in a given direction; and often hesitate at crosswalks crossing 2 lanes in a given direction. This is a direct result of multithreat: I’ve nearly been the lead vehicle; I’ve nearly been the trailing vehicle; and I *have* been the pedestrian — struck on several occassions.
———
The multithreat scenario can be best described with an example: imagine a pedestrian attempting to cross at a crosswalk; there are two lanes in each direction, and two cars are approaching the crosswalk in the same lane – one right behind the other. The first motorist may notice the pedestrian and slow down to yield.
Trailing motorists have a natural tendency to focus on the vehicle in front of them, and hence: the second motorist’s attention was already diverted from the pedestrian; but the appearance of brake lights has now fully captured the motorist’s attention. The second motorist does not notice the presence of the pedestrian and is only acting in response to the actions of the first motorists.
The second motorist may not react quickly enough or may be following too closely, and may rear-end the motorist – potentially also causing one or both vehicles to collide with the pedestrian. Alternately, the second motorist may change lanes and continue across the crosswalk.
As the pedestrian sees the first motorist slowing down, the pedestrian may either not see the second motorist, or may assume the second motorist will also yield. As the pedestrian begins the crossing, a conflict may arise should the second motorist suddenly change lanes and pass the yielding vehicle.
April 6th, 2010 at 8:41 am
While I do fault drivers for breaking the law in these instances, crosswalks on high-volume arterials seems like a recipe for disaster. On two-lane roads in residential or commercial areas, it’s fine . But, I remember encountering them on broad, high-speed boulevards in LA – they always made me nervous, both as a driver and a pedestrian. On major multi-lane roads, I think it would be safer for everyone to just install traffic signals at crosswalks.
April 6th, 2010 at 8:51 am
This multithreat situation is a problem for cyclists too. It’s extremely common here in Canada for a cyclist to be waiting at a stop/yield sign when an oncoming motorist with the right-of-way, confused about priority and wanting to be courteous, stops and signals the cyclist to proceed. Many cyclists will take advantage of this and go, only to be hit or nearly hit by another vehicle who doesn’t understand the situation. Of course the cyclist isn’t protected by pedestrian laws and this is rightly considered a failure to yield. There are intersections here where multiple motorists will stop in succession and wave cyclists past, even if the cyclists indicate they will not proceed. Of course there are also cyclists who will force motorists to stop by aggressively pushing out at the intersection. But misplaced courtesy in cases like this can kill.
April 7th, 2010 at 2:21 am
I doubt this will have much effect on behaviors, even law-abiding ones. The benefit will come from increased awareness of pedestrian’s rights, even though the article is critical. The change in law is practically meaningless, as yielding at a crosswalk may often require a stop anyway and a good driver should be able to sight a crosser from a good distance and slow down well in advance, letting the pedestrian walk by and mooting the stop requirement. Some pedestrians are unwilling to assert their priority at a crosswalk even when cars are clearly yielding to them. I sometimes find myself approaching a crosswalk from some distance at idle speed, making eye contact, only to stop at the crosswalk, and then be waved through by the pedestrian. My beat-up car and other aspects of my appearance may affect this reluctance. But I yield anyways, out of civic courtesy and respect for traffic safety laws. Pedestrians should reassess their body language at crosswalks, if they are completely unwilling to cross under certain conditions, then step back from the curb, it’s more pleasant and less harrowing (and timewasting) for everyone. The article got some things kinda right though, “Europe is way ahead of us on traffic safety [...] We’re taking a lot of our cues from them.” I don’t think this legal shift is one of them.
April 7th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
One time in Eureka, CA (which I think at one point was home to California’s most dangerous streets), a homeless man was crossing a three lane one-way arterial that is part of US 101. Two lanes of traffic stopped for him, but someone darted into the third and hit the man. His body flew 100 feet and then hit a traffic sign which broke. I was riding my bike home from work a block away when this happened. The driver was drunk and going 60+ in a 35mph zone.
I remember my coworkers at the time, all committed drivers of automobiles, used this tragedy as an excuse to moan and complain about jaywalking. That is a common attitude that will be hard to shake. Another pedestrian had been run down and killed a couple weeks prior, as well. My own efforts at reason were met with ridicule, perhaps partly because I was a pyscho who was nuts enough to try riding a bicycle in Eureka. They were right, too, because citizens of that town threatened to kill me frequently, and made active attempts more than once. Thank god I live in Seattle now.