Police Step Up Crosswalk Enforcement on Chicago Streets

Lest people think the police only run stings on bicycles running stop signs to enforce safety rules: http://chicagoist.com/2010/09/20/police_step_up_crosswalk_enforceme...

 

Sure, the police should--and probably could--do more to ensure the safe operation of motor vehicles on the streets, but at least it's a start in a good direction.   

Views: 132

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gin on September 20, 2010 at 11:29am
I believe the problem of drivers (and cyclists) failing to yield to pedestrians (and cyclists) is far greater than "darters." In the grand scheme, one person's desire to cruise along without stopping or slowing down should not trump another person's need to cross said street.

The other day, I was trying to cross Western at Ohio on foot. It's a ped activated signal. I waited at least two minutes, maybe longer. The light did not change. That's totally unacceptable in an urban environment, esp one block away from a school. I crossed against the light and looked back as I walked on--still no change so I called 311. Those signals are inconvenient for biking too. We should not have to get on the sidewalk to indicate that we need to cross, or hope for a car to drive up behind us to trigger the signal.
Permalink Reply by Jason W on September 20, 2010 at 12:32pm
Gin said:
I believe the problem of drivers (and cyclists) failing to yield to pedestrians (and cyclists) is far greater than "darters." In the grand scheme, one person's desire to cruise along without stopping or slowing down should not trump another person's need to cross said street.

I don't see any problem with the law as it applies to pedestrians legally crossing the street. There is absolutely no reason this law needed to apply to people illegally crossing the street. Why is it all or nothing Gin? Look at it from both points of view. Why should you be sued for something that is not your fault? Why should the money you use to pay the rent and feed your children go to someone who is at fault? This kind of law can really hurt people who haven't done anything wrong.
Permalink Reply by Gin on September 20, 2010 at 2:11pm
I do see lots of sides to this question, and am not a fan of all or nothing situations. I can understand the push back about being able to be cited for crashing into someone who is not following the law.

I am coming at this from a few angles.

1) Surprise that this conversation seems to be more about worry for drivers/cyclists being penalized for crashing into someone who is somewhere they should not be (ie--crossing against a light, etc.) I do see the greater problem being those who can cause the most damage not yielding to more vulnerable users of the road.
2) Some faith (misplaced????), that all kinds of factors are, er, factored into legal decisions about fault and liability. I mean, how many times have we seen drivers get off with barely a ticket after crashes that hurt and kill people? Instead of assuming worst case (family goes bankrupt after super careful never distracted mom crashes into pedestrian zoned out on smart phone who wandered into the crosswalk against the light), I am excited to see if this law can influence driver behavior to be more careful and understanding that sometimes the chickens need to get to the other side of the road sometime this century.
3) Frustration with our car-first traffic laws, infrastructure, habits and attitudes. It's hard to level the playing field on a steep mountain.
4) Open-mindedness about how we could better manage the crazy traffic dance. I think we *do* rely on traffic signals too much. It's easy to zone out and stay focused on the red and the green. I do this as a biker.
5) I don't drive b/c driving actually terrifies me. I am afraid that I would hurt someone. I get too much into my own head when biking. I would be a menace on the road. Driving is a very special right with awesome responsibility. I am surprised so many people feel up to it.



Jason W said:
Gin said:
I believe the problem of drivers (and cyclists) failing to yield to pedestrians (and cyclists) is far greater than "darters." In the grand scheme, one person's desire to cruise along without stopping or slowing down should not trump another person's need to cross said street.

I don't see any problem with the law as it applies to pedestrians legally crossing the street. There is absolutely no reason this law needed to apply to people illegally crossing the street. Why is it all or nothing Gin? Look at it from both points of view. Why should you be sued for something that is not your fault? Why should the money you use to pay the rent and feed your children go to someone who is at fault? This kind of law can really hurt people who haven't done anything wrong.
Permalink Reply by Jason W on September 20, 2010 at 2:54pm
1. I don't see how specifically putting in verbiage that says illegal peds are not at fault helps legal peds. Simply leaving that out would have the same affect on drivers IMO.
2. Who gets the ticket is significant in civil cases. That is basically the law saying that person is the one who should pay.
3. I think we need to make this a more just world, and not rally against the automobile without thought as to the consequences. I am also concerned that the antibike peds (and law enforcement) will use this more against bikes then cars. I hear peds complain much more about the rogue biker (myth) being a menace then the taxi cabs.
Permalink Reply by Gin on September 20, 2010 at 3:02pm
Interesting point about the antibike peds. This is where I wring my hands and say "Can't we all just get aloooonnnnngggggg?"

But I will keep pushing back on excessive car use (and the laws and land use and subsidies and habits that make driving the first choice for so many people), as I think it does compromise efforts for a more just world.
Permalink Reply by ad on September 20, 2010 at 6:30pm
Kind of curious where the trib and other news outlets are getting the idea that the amendment applies to ALL crosswalks, whether a traffic control light is present or not. This is how the law itself reads after the amendment that Gov. Quinn signed into law:

"Sec. 11-1002. Pedestrians' right-of-way at crosswalks. (a)
When traffic control signals are not in place or not in
operation the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the
right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield,
to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when
the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the
vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so
closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in
danger."

The underlined language is what was added by the legislature, with the struck out language reflecting what was removed. Section 11-1002, by its plain language, only seems to apply when a traffic signal is NOT present or NOT in operation. Nothing in the amendment suggests the law has changed to include pedestrians that are illegally jaywalking against a red light. The substitution of STOP for YIELD is the only real change made to the law. Unless the law was already being interpreted by the courts to mean a driver had to yield when a person was crossing in a crosswalk against a red light (and I'm not aware of any cases that have done so, all though I can't say for certain that they don't exist), I fail to see how this amendment really changed anything in that context.

In fact, section 11-1002(b), which is part of the same law, even specifically provides:
"(b) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a moving vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard."

I would argue that this would already seem to at least include people knowingly darting against a red light.

As someone noted above, section 11-1003.1 does provide that:
"Notwithstanding other provisions of this Code or the provisions of any local ordinance, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian, or any person operating a bicycle or other device propelled by human power and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person."

Requiring someone to exercise "due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian" is simply not the same as saying a driver or cyclist is automatically at fault if they hit a person, even if that person was illegally jaywalking in a crosswalk. Simply put, I think the trib and some other news outlets are reading a bit too much into the amendment and acting like chicken little screaming the sky is falling.
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on September 21, 2010 at 12:40am
Now this makes a lot more sense. And I definitely agree with Jason's points.

Looking at the big picture from both sides, it makes even more sense. When I am a pedestrian, I often encounter locations where I need to cross but there is no stop sign or stoplight to break the traffic. In my neighborhood, 99th St., 95th St. and Longwood Drive are my most frequent examples. 99th St., with moderate to heavy traffic for much of the day and few stoplights, is the toughest to cross. When I try to cross legally at a crosswalk, few drivers will yield, even with the new law. There are few breaks in traffic that are long enough for me to cross, and the street is too narrow for mid-street islands - similar to Ridge in Edgewater, Rogers Park and Evanston.

When I ride my bike in the Loop or other congested areas, pedestrians often dart out into the traffic lane against their light or in a random place, forcing me to swerve, slow down or stop when I had right of way. I lost count long ago of how many times I was nearing a Loop stoplight at the tail end of the green when peds started crossing early - right in front of me - and I had to swerve aggressively or hit the brakes hard. I know that many of you have similar examples. This is a big problem for many bike commuters in River North and the Loop.

The law does need to work both ways, otherwise it will unfairly penalize people who did nothing wrong and end up being unenforceable. If that happens, it benefits no one.

arohr said:
Kind of curious where the trib and other news outlets are getting the idea that the amendment applies to ALL crosswalks, whether a traffic control light is present or not. This is how the law itself reads after the amendment that Gov. Quinn signed into law:

"Sec. 11-1002. Pedestrians' right-of-way at crosswalks. (a)
When traffic control signals are not in place or not in
operation the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the
right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield,
to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when
the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the
vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so
closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in
danger."

The underlined language is what was added by the legislature, with the struck out language reflecting what was removed. Section 11-1002, by its plain language, only seems to apply when a traffic signal is NOT present or NOT in operation. Nothing in the amendment suggests the law has changed to include pedestrians that are illegally jaywalking against a red light. The substitution of STOP for YIELD is the only real change made to the law. Unless the law was already being interpreted by the courts to mean a driver had to yield when a person was crossing in a crosswalk against a red light (and I'm not aware of any cases that have done so, all though I can't say for certain that they don't exist), I fail to see how this amendment really changed anything in that context.

In fact, section 11-1002(b), which is part of the same law, even specifically provides:
"(b) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a moving vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard."

I would argue that this would already seem to at least include people knowingly darting against a red light.

As someone noted above, section 11-1003.1 does provide that:
"Notwithstanding other provisions of this Code or the provisions of any local ordinance, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian, or any person operating a bicycle or other device propelled by human power and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person."

Requiring someone to exercise "due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian" is simply not the same as saying a driver or cyclist is automatically at fault if they hit a person, even if that person was illegally jaywalking in a crosswalk. Simply put, I think the trib and some other news outlets are reading a bit too much into the amendment and acting like chicken little screaming the sky is falling.
Permalink Reply by Gin on September 21, 2010 at 1:08am
Thank you so much for filling in the details. This seems much more logical, and is what I had thought the law was intended to be before I read this discussion. I should have reread all the sections of the law before jumping into the discussion. (Though most of my points still stand.)

Basically, when the crosswalk *is* the traffic control device, folks need to let us through. But peds don't get to dart. Also, everyone needs to exercise due care in general. Do you think that is a fair summary?

arohr said:
Kind of curious where the trib and other news outlets are getting the idea that the amendment applies to ALL crosswalks, whether a traffic control light is present or not. This is how the law itself reads after the amendment that Gov. Quinn signed into law:

"Sec. 11-1002. Pedestrians' right-of-way at crosswalks. (a)
When traffic control signals are not in place or not in
operation the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the
right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield,
to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when
the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the
vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so
closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in
danger."

The underlined language is what was added by the legislature, with the struck out language reflecting what was removed. Section 11-1002, by its plain language, only seems to apply when a traffic signal is NOT present or NOT in operation. Nothing in the amendment suggests the law has changed to include pedestrians that are illegally jaywalking against a red light. The substitution of STOP for YIELD is the only real change made to the law. Unless the law was already being interpreted by the courts to mean a driver had to yield when a person was crossing in a crosswalk against a red light (and I'm not aware of any cases that have done so, all though I can't say for certain that they don't exist), I fail to see how this amendment really changed anything in that context.

In fact, section 11-1002(b), which is part of the same law, even specifically provides:
"(b) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a moving vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard."

I would argue that this would already seem to at least include people knowingly darting against a red light.

As someone noted above, section 11-1003.1 does provide that:
"Notwithstanding other provisions of this Code or the provisions of any local ordinance, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian, or any person operating a bicycle or other device propelled by human power and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person."

Requiring someone to exercise "due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian" is simply not the same as saying a driver or cyclist is automatically at fault if they hit a person, even if that person was illegally jaywalking in a crosswalk. Simply put, I think the trib and some other news outlets are reading a bit too much into the amendment and acting like chicken little screaming the sky is falling.
Permalink Reply by ad on September 21, 2010 at 3:01am
Yeah, that is pretty much how I read it.

Gin said:
Thank you so much for filling in the details. This seems much more logical, and is what I had thought the law was intended to be before I read this discussion. I should have reread all the sections of the law before jumping into the discussion. (Though most of my points still stand.)

Basically, when the crosswalk *is* the traffic control device, folks need to let us through. But peds don't get to dart. Also, everyone needs to exercise due care in general. Do you think that is a fair summary?

arohr said:
Kind of curious where the trib and other news outlets are getting the idea that the amendment applies to ALL crosswalks, whether a traffic control light is present or not. This is how the law itself reads after the amendment that Gov. Quinn signed into law:

"Sec. 11-1002. Pedestrians' right-of-way at crosswalks. (a)
When traffic control signals are not in place or not in
operation the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the
right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield,
to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when
the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the
vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so
closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in
danger."

The underlined language is what was added by the legislature, with the struck out language reflecting what was removed. Section 11-1002, by its plain language, only seems to apply when a traffic signal is NOT present or NOT in operation. Nothing in the amendment suggests the law has changed to include pedestrians that are illegally jaywalking against a red light. The substitution of STOP for YIELD is the only real change made to the law. Unless the law was already being interpreted by the courts to mean a driver had to yield when a person was crossing in a crosswalk against a red light (and I'm not aware of any cases that have done so, all though I can't say for certain that they don't exist), I fail to see how this amendment really changed anything in that context.

In fact, section 11-1002(b), which is part of the same law, even specifically provides:
"(b) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a moving vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard."

I would argue that this would already seem to at least include people knowingly darting against a red light.

As someone noted above, section 11-1003.1 does provide that:
"Notwithstanding other provisions of this Code or the provisions of any local ordinance, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian, or any person operating a bicycle or other device propelled by human power and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person."

Requiring someone to exercise "due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian" is simply not the same as saying a driver or cyclist is automatically at fault if they hit a person, even if that person was illegally jaywalking in a crosswalk. Simply put, I think the trib and some other news outlets are reading a bit too much into the amendment and acting like chicken little screaming the sky is falling.
Permalink Reply by Tank-Ridin' Ryan on September 21, 2010 at 4:00am
Thank you for the clarification arohr. The law sounds a lot more sane now.

arohr said:
Kind of curious where the trib and other news outlets are getting the idea that the amendment applies to ALL crosswalks, whether a traffic control light is present or not. This is how the law itself reads after the amendment that Gov. Quinn signed into law:

"Sec. 11-1002. Pedestrians' right-of-way at crosswalks. (a)
When traffic control signals are not in place or not in
operation the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the
right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield,
to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when
the pedestrian is upon the half of the roadway upon which the
vehicle is traveling, or when the pedestrian is approaching so
closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in
danger."

The underlined language is what was added by the legislature, with the struck out language reflecting what was removed. Section 11-1002, by its plain language, only seems to apply when a traffic signal is NOT present or NOT in operation. Nothing in the amendment suggests the law has changed to include pedestrians that are illegally jaywalking against a red light. The substitution of STOP for YIELD is the only real change made to the law. Unless the law was already being interpreted by the courts to mean a driver had to yield when a person was crossing in a crosswalk against a red light (and I'm not aware of any cases that have done so, all though I can't say for certain that they don't exist), I fail to see how this amendment really changed anything in that context.

In fact, section 11-1002(b), which is part of the same law, even specifically provides:
"(b) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a moving vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard."

I would argue that this would already seem to at least include people knowingly darting against a red light.

As someone noted above, section 11-1003.1 does provide that:
"Notwithstanding other provisions of this Code or the provisions of any local ordinance, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian, or any person operating a bicycle or other device propelled by human power and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any obviously confused, incapacitated or intoxicated person."

Requiring someone to exercise "due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian" is simply not the same as saying a driver or cyclist is automatically at fault if they hit a person, even if that person was illegally jaywalking in a crosswalk. Simply put, I think the trib and some other news outlets are reading a bit too much into the amendment and acting like chicken little screaming the sky is falling.
Permalink Reply by Jason W on September 22, 2010 at 6:32am
Where are our resident lawyers? I wish they would chime in. I'm still confused about whether this is for the darters, and also, what exactly does "in" the crosswalk mean? Does that mean in the road part of the crosswalk, or someone on the sidewalk near a crosswalk.
Permalink Reply by Active Transportation Alliance on September 22, 2010 at 8:03am
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

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service