Where I live, pedestrians have the right of way at crosswalks (fun fact: when this was introduced somewhere in the 70s, car drivers have been angry about it)
Serious question: are there places in the world that have marked pedestrian crossings (crosswalks), but vehicles DON’T have to give way to pedestrians?
Yes, Germany.
They have two types of pedestrian crosswalks. One of them is the standard "zebra crossing", where the whole crosswalk is maked with white stripes and there pedestrians have right of way.
The other one just has just dashes at the sides of the crossing, and here pedestrians have no right of way. But if these are present (same with the other type) pedestrians are not allowed to cross the road for iirc 50 meters left or right of the crossing. So it essentially turns the road left and right of the crossing into a "no crossing allowed" zone.
They do this at traffic lights, so that if the light doesn't work pedestrians don't have right of way. And sometimes they just do it to annoy pedestrians, because it's car-country Germany and fuck pedestrians or something.
In Prague, pedestrians officially have the right of way, but most drivers don't seem to know that.
Yeah, unfortunately that seems pretty normal in a lot of places.
Not long ago in Poland a pedestrian would have the right of way only after they were already on the crossing. So if you would get killed on a crosswalk that would be classified as intrusion and the driver would go scot-free
In most states in the US, if the automobile traffic has the green light and the pedestrian traffic has a "don't walk" sign, then the pedestrians are supposed to yield to the cars.
Sorry, I guess I should have more specific - if it’s a signalled pedestrian crossing, of course the signals need to be followed. I was wondering in the context of a crossing that only has markings, but no signals.
It looks like it changed last year, but the UK. The law was previously that pedestrians in a crosswalk should wait until it was clear to start crossing, as opposed to cars should stop if someone is waiting to cross.
I remember in NJ USA as a kid being told that cars didn't have to stop at zebra crossings. I don't know if it was true, I wasn't skeptically investigating things when I was 7.
So maybe the rules are one way, but the locals don't follow it so you can't treat the rule as being in place.
People keep posting things saying that, it's not even true.
What do you mean? It's true in Denmark. It's the law that cars have to stop at marked acrosswalks.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Driver's aren't all pissy, it's bullshit.
Drivers are upset about it, here. If it came up to vote, they'd get rid of it.
As far as I am aware, this is true in Ohio***. At crosswalks, pedestrians have the right of way the moment they step onto the crosswalk - though of course you are supposed to also make sure that by stepping onto a crosswalk you are not causing a hazard (so in other words, don't step on when there is a car coming up fast enough to cause an accident if they suddenly stop for you).
The exception is if you are at a crosswalk with a signal that indicates to NOT cross, then cars have the right of way (or at the very least, you won't catch me attempting to "test" otherwise). Though again, as a driver this doesn't give you permission to just plow through someone whose already crossing if you had the ability to stop safely.
*Right-of-way laws vary everywhere and are not universal (and are very specific - the places I've seen/been at generally indicate that you have to be actively on the crosswalk to have right-of-way, cars don't have to yield/stop to wait for you to step onto and begin crossing), what @thisNotMyName@lemmy.world can be true for where they live, yet it could be false where you live.
**They are also complex sometimes, for example here in Ohio I believe at marked crosswalks you technically only have right-of-way on your half of the crosswalk - if someone coming the opposite direction makes a right turn onto your crosswalk and you're not on "that half" yet, then you are supposed to yield for them.
What it comes down to is, what is true and false regarding right-of-way laws is incredibly specific on context and where you are, which will explain why you're seeing some people say this, and others who aren't.
However, what is generally false is the assumption that pedestrians always have the right-of-way everywhere and anywhere.
Where I live, pedestrians have the right of way at crosswalks (fun fact: when this was introduced somewhere in the 70s, car drivers have been angry about it)
Serious question: are there places in the world that have marked pedestrian crossings (crosswalks), but vehicles DON’T have to give way to pedestrians?
Yes, Germany.
They have two types of pedestrian crosswalks. One of them is the standard "zebra crossing", where the whole crosswalk is maked with white stripes and there pedestrians have right of way.
The other one just has just dashes at the sides of the crossing, and here pedestrians have no right of way. But if these are present (same with the other type) pedestrians are not allowed to cross the road for iirc 50 meters left or right of the crossing. So it essentially turns the road left and right of the crossing into a "no crossing allowed" zone.
They do this at traffic lights, so that if the light doesn't work pedestrians don't have right of way. And sometimes they just do it to annoy pedestrians, because it's car-country Germany and fuck pedestrians or something.
In Prague, pedestrians officially have the right of way, but most drivers don't seem to know that.
Yeah, unfortunately that seems pretty normal in a lot of places.
Not long ago in Poland a pedestrian would have the right of way only after they were already on the crossing. So if you would get killed on a crosswalk that would be classified as intrusion and the driver would go scot-free
In most states in the US, if the automobile traffic has the green light and the pedestrian traffic has a "don't walk" sign, then the pedestrians are supposed to yield to the cars.
Sorry, I guess I should have more specific - if it’s a signalled pedestrian crossing, of course the signals need to be followed. I was wondering in the context of a crossing that only has markings, but no signals.
It looks like it changed last year, but the UK. The law was previously that pedestrians in a crosswalk should wait until it was clear to start crossing, as opposed to cars should stop if someone is waiting to cross.
I remember in NJ USA as a kid being told that cars didn't have to stop at zebra crossings. I don't know if it was true, I wasn't skeptically investigating things when I was 7.
The best I could find was this blog talking about how the rules say they should stop, but they frequently don't: https://www.expataussieinnj.com/understanding-road-rules-for-pedestrians-in-nj/
So maybe the rules are one way, but the locals don't follow it so you can't treat the rule as being in place.
People keep posting things saying that, it's not even true.
What do you mean? It's true in Denmark. It's the law that cars have to stop at marked acrosswalks.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Driver's aren't all pissy, it's bullshit.
Drivers are upset about it, here. If it came up to vote, they'd get rid of it.
As far as I am aware, this is true in Ohio***. At crosswalks, pedestrians have the right of way the moment they step onto the crosswalk - though of course you are supposed to also make sure that by stepping onto a crosswalk you are not causing a hazard (so in other words, don't step on when there is a car coming up fast enough to cause an accident if they suddenly stop for you).
The exception is if you are at a crosswalk with a signal that indicates to NOT cross, then cars have the right of way (or at the very least, you won't catch me attempting to "test" otherwise). Though again, as a driver this doesn't give you permission to just plow through someone whose already crossing if you had the ability to stop safely.
*Right-of-way laws vary everywhere and are not universal (and are very specific - the places I've seen/been at generally indicate that you have to be actively on the crosswalk to have right-of-way, cars don't have to yield/stop to wait for you to step onto and begin crossing), what @thisNotMyName@lemmy.world can be true for where they live, yet it could be false where you live.
**They are also complex sometimes, for example here in Ohio I believe at marked crosswalks you technically only have right-of-way on your half of the crosswalk - if someone coming the opposite direction makes a right turn onto your crosswalk and you're not on "that half" yet, then you are supposed to yield for them.
What it comes down to is, what is true and false regarding right-of-way laws is incredibly specific on context and where you are, which will explain why you're seeing some people say this, and others who aren't.
However, what is generally false is the assumption that pedestrians always have the right-of-way everywhere and anywhere.