07-03-2022, 09:17 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-03-2022, 09:17 AM by danbrotherston.)
(07-03-2022, 08:09 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:(07-03-2022, 02:15 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: So what is the "danger" here? I don't consider "legal risk" danger, if you even think there is any legal risk here to engineers or the city, which I doubt there is anyway.
To me the danger comes from having one side expecting the other to stop when in fact that other side has no obligation to stop.
Since it is the City implicitly telling the first side that the other should stop even though legally the other side does not have to stop, they are the ones causing the dangerous situation and may be legally liable.
That’s my thinking, at any rate. How much connection it has to reality is another matter. The point about never crossing unless the cyclist is sure road traffic is yielding is a good one, and certainly prudent on the part of the cyclist, regardless of the legal situation.
There is not a cyclist or pedestrian in the entire country which expects drivers to stop at crossings. Every single pedestrian and cyclist in the country knows that drivers will fail to yield whether required to or not.
This is why it isn't "dangerous"...because it doesn't change anything about behaviour.
I'd add to that, the fact that our right of way laws are so poorly communicated and so far detached from the actual experience of using a crossing that nobody, not cyclists, nor pedestrians, nor drivers actually know when they should yield...beyond a few policy wonks like us here, actual lawyers, actual traffic engineers, and maybe a few cops....maybe.