Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by ad on September 22, 2010 at 8:39am

If Active Trans does decide to respond to the comments, I would be interested to hear how you guys interpret this portion of the language in section 11-1002: "When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation...."

I think it's completely clear that section 11-1002 of the Vehicle Code applies to all uncontrolled crosswalks and to crosswalks where a stop sign or a flashing red light controls the intersection (under section 11-1002(e) of the Code, assuming the term yield used there was intended to change to stop even though the language itself wasn't changed by the amendment), but I'm curious on exactly how this is being interpreted by people to cover intersections where traffic lights are present?



Active Transportation Alliance said:

I'm still working through all of the comments in this discussion and will be chatting with Dan Persky, our policy and education director, who leads our legislative efforts, to see if there is anything specific we should address.

Here is some background and FAQ about the law: http://www.activetrans.org/blog/dpersky/hb-43-explained

The Tribune did get some of it wrong, it quotes:

"The new law also applies to instances in which a pedestrian enters the crosswalk against a "Don't Walk" signal or a red light, just as the old law required drivers to yield in such cases, officials said."

Our response to the reporter was about this quote was:
All road users are required by law, and common courtesy, to respect all traffic laws. We don't want to encourage pedestrians, or anyone else, to disobey the important safety functions of red lights and other traffic control devices.

Thanks,
Ethan, with Active Trans

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on September 28, 2010 at 11:09am

If a traffic light is present, HB 43 is not needed. Everyone needs to obey the traffic lights, i.e. go only when they have a green light and turning cars yielding to pedestrians. If no traffic light or sign is present, then HB 43 goes into effect.

The confusion may have been because of an existing law, not affected by HB 43, which has always required drivers to do everything in their power to avoid striking a pedestrian in the roadway regardless of the situation. In other words, that existing law covers if someone crosses the street illegally against a DON'T WALK signal and an approaching driver sees them and has time to stop to avoid a crash but the driver still strikes the pedestrian anyway. A pedestrian breaking the law is not a valid excuse to harm or kill that pedestrian. This is not new though and not related to HB 43.

- Lee Crandell, Active Trans Membership Director

arohr said:

If Active Trans does decide to respond to the comments, I would be interested to hear how you guys interpret this portion of the language in section 11-1002: "When traffic control signals are not in place or not in operation...."

I think it's completely clear that section 11-1002 of the Vehicle Code applies to all uncontrolled crosswalks and to crosswalks where a stop sign or a flashing red light controls the intersection (under section 11-1002(e) of the Code, assuming the term yield used there was intended to change to stop even though the language itself wasn't changed by the amendment), but I'm curious on exactly how this is being interpreted by people to cover intersections where traffic lights are present?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page