In article >,
Kenneth Crudup > wrote:
>In article >,
>"Daniel W. Rouse Jr." > says:
>
>>The stupidity is on the part of the drivers, who conveniently forget that a
>>marked crosswalk plus a green light in the direction of the crosswalk,
>>regardless of the presence or absence of pedestrian signals, is a
>>legal/right-of-way crossing for the pedestrians.
>
>... but in quite a few places back East, cars don't stop just 'cause
>some ped traipsed out into the street, yet the peds don't get hit and
>the traffic doesn't stall.
>
>I hear when Californicators go back East, it's funny to see them nearly
>get mowed down when they foolishly think other states have passed laws
>that are blind to the laws of physics (and expect drivers to stop for
>them just 'cause they're about to venture out into the street).

I was walking with a group of people in Columbus recently. We came
to an unsignalized crosswalk. I waited for a gap in traffic and
started to cross. Halfway across I noticed that the others were not
following me. My definition of a gap follows the law -- you can't
jump close in front of a vehicle but you can make distant vehicles
slow down. Their definition of a gap in traffic assumed vehicles
do not yield to pedestrians, i.e. it ignored the legal effect of
the crosswalk.

(This crosswalk, on High Street near the North Market, has an
illuminated overhead sign saying CROSS WALK. It is not a subtly
different shading of the road surface from a ten year old paint
job like a Boston-area crosswalk is likely to be.)
--
John Carr )