Walking in Waterloo Region

[danbrotherston]

Not sure if this is more appropriate for this thread or the roads thread, but anyways... Am I correct to assume that pedestrians have right of way at an intersection controlled by stop signs, even if there is not paint for the pedestrian crossing? I know it's just paint, but these crossings always bother me. I feel that cars yield less often without the paint, but I might just be attributing the failure to yield incorrectly (they might've done it either way). Or am I just wrong in assuming I have right of way?

If I'm correct, is there an appropriate place to contact to try and get these painted (I could probably come up with dozens I come across regularly), or is that a hopeless endeavor?

I could be wrong, but I think the answer would be “it depends”.  As a practical matter, however, the pedestrian always has right of way IF they are in the intersection (i.e. if the driver doesn’t yield, he will be at fault if he hits a pedestrian).  If the pedestrian is not yet in the intersection, many drivers will yield, but I’m not sure the are legally obliged to (a marked pedestrian crossing would be a different matter).

I don't think it depends.

From the HTA, section 1 general definitions:

"“crosswalk” means,

(a) that part of a highway at an intersection that is included within the connections of the lateral lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the highway measured from the curbs or, in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway, or

(b) any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface; (“passage protégé pour piétons”)"

I would take provision a to mean that any intersection with sidewalks by definition has legal "crosswalks" in line with the sidewalks regardless of any markings on the surface of the road (markings as described in provision b).

This definition makes no distinction between these two types of crosswalks and driver legal responsibility is the same whether there are lines on the road or not. Therefore I don't believe it matters whether it is marked or not.  That being said, police are probably MORE likely to (or frankly even know to) ticket a driver hitting a pedestrian in a marked crosswalk.

In terms of yielding, you might be technically correct, but again, for all crosswalks:

"Yielding to pedestrians

(7) When under this section a driver is permitted to proceed, the driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within a crosswalk.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (7)."

But this provision is frankly, unpleasant for pedestrians, implying that legally you must step in front of a car in order for them to violate your right of way...kind of absurd. This is less of an issue with stop signs, where drivers are supposed to stop...of course, they often don't. I have no idea what this even says about yield signs, probably the law is inconsistent here.

But this is far from the biggest issue with our right of way laws.

I mean, just off the top of my head:

"Pedestrian crossover
Duties of driver
140 (1) When a pedestrian is crossing on the roadway within a pedestrian crossover, the driver of a vehicle approaching the crossover,

(a) shall stop before entering the crossover;

(b) shall not overtake another vehicle already stopped at the crossover; and

© shall not proceed into the crossover until the pedestrian is no longer on the roadway. 2015, c. 14, s. 39 (1)."

Requires drivers to stop only when a pedestrian is in the roadway at a crossover.

"Duty of pedestrian

(4) No pedestrian shall leave the curb or other place of safety at a pedestrian crossover and walk, run or move into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impracticable for the driver of the vehicle to comply with subsection (1). 2015, c. 14, s. 39 (2)." 

Requires pedestrians not to enter a crossover while drivers are "too close to practically stop"...which means drivers don't have to stop for pedestrians who are trying to cross at a crossover...despite that being what the sign, instructions, and legislative intention all say.

Another fun one:

"Duties of pedestrian when walking along highway
179 (1) Where sidewalks are not provided on a highway, a pedestrian walking along the highway shall walk on the left side thereof facing oncoming traffic and, when walking along the roadway, shall walk as close to the left edge thereof as possible.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 179 (1).

Idem
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a pedestrian walking a bicycle in circumstances where crossing to the left side of the highway would be unsafe.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 179 (2)."

So basically this recognizes that a pedestrian who is pushing a bicycle may not be able to safely cross to walk on the correct (left) side of the roadway when there is no sidewalk. But fails to recognize that the same situation can obviously exist for pedestrians not pushing a bicycle.

Ugh...feeling ranty tonight.