On this site and elsewhere, it is sometimes asserted that under BC law, no one ever "has the right of way" -- that right of way can only be yielded. That is contradicted by the following from the Act:
127(1)(b) - 128(1)(c)(ii) - 129(4)(c)(ii) - 130(2)(d)(ii) - 132(1) - 132(2) - 132(3)(b)(ii)
These sections pertain to pedestrians, specifying when and where they do, in fact, have the right of way.
As for drivers, the reason the Act doesn't attach right of way to one driver over another is that doing so would lay down an absolute -- but an absolute that's unworkable. This is because in almost any situation there could be other contingencies which would trump the driver's normal precedence. For example, how can a driver have a mandated "right of way" but then lose that precedence to an approaching emergency vehicle displaying lights and siren?
The Act can't be written to prescribe who has the right of way except for such-and-such and unless such-and-such. Much better to specify who needs to yield.
On the other hand, in the above cited parts of the Act, the pedestrian does have the right of way as an absolute, even over that emergency vehicle.
It makes sense of course; pedestrians are vulnerable (especially when they're wandering across the road with their eyes glued to their mobile phone) so the law seeks to protect them.
That said, it's becoming increasingly rare to find traffic lights that don't have accompanying pedestrian control signals, so Sections 127, 128 & 129 are almost superfluous.
What pedestrians need to realize though is that those Pedestrian controls covered in Section 132 were created, not to allow pedestrians to cross the road, but to stop them from doing so in order to facilitate turning vehicles.
- Log in to post comments
There is also a section of the act that ICBC likes to use way too much in determining fault which states that a driver must do whatever it takes to avoid the pedestrian no matter what (not that wording obviously but that's the just of it). Meaning that a jaywalking pedestrian may not be at fault after all... All of this to say that it's a lawyers game. If you ask me, time for a no fault system but I'm going off topic.
I like to use the term "dead right" when it comes to pedestrian claiming the right of way at crosswalk. You might be right but you're dead.
- Log in to post comments
Re: What pedestrians need to realize though is that those Pedestrian controls covered in Section 132 were created, not to allow pedestrians to cross the road, but to stop them from doing so in order to facilitate turning vehicles.
Turning vehicles?? The pedestrian controls first purpose is to stop pedestrians from walking into the path of motor vehicles going straight through. Only where an intersection has green turn arrows do the pedestrian controls have a second purpose of facilitating turning vehicles.
- Log in to post comments
... you have not comprehended Sections 127, 128 & 129 (assuming you actually read them).
When pedestrian controls are not in place, then pedestrians are required to obey the traffic lights. Think about that, within the context of this statement you just made:
The pedestrian controls first purpose is to stop pedestrians from walking into the path of motor vehicles going straight through.
Then consider Section 129(4)(a), which says:
(4) When a red light alone is exhibited at an intersection by a traffic control signal,
(a) a pedestrian facing the red light must not enter the roadway unless instructed that he or she may do so by a pedestrian traffic control signal
And after that, take the time to properly read - and comprehend - all those sections about how pedestrians may, or may not, behave, when faced with a traffic light alone without pedestrian control signals. Take your time, maybe ask a friend to help you interpret the language.
Once this all sinks in (assuming it does), then you may properly understand my statement about why they had to invent pedestrian control signals.
There has to be a portion of the green traffic light phase where pedestrians are no longer allowed to enter the crosswalk, even whilst facing that green light, in order to allow vehicles to turn.
- Log in to post comments
Your condescending and insulting statements regarding my ability to read and understand these relatively simple sections of the BC MVA suggest that the point I was making was not communicated. Possibly I could have expressed it better, so please bear with me while I try again. The "don't walk" pedestrian symbol for a cross-walk is to tell the pedestrian not to cross primarily because there may be vehicles coming straight through the intersection on a green light at right angles to the crosswalk. An additional secondary reason for a "don't walk" signal arises if there is turning traffic that's approaching the intersection and making a turn across the crosswalk on a green arrow. This would be in addition to the first reason, but not the only reason as was intimated in the original post, which is why I commented. I was not talking about the flashing "don't start to cross" signal that comes on part way through the green light cycle, or intersections without pedestrian signals.
- Log in to post comments
You're right - I was condescending, probably sarcastic too, so my apologies for that.
However, let me state my case, and I believe that you'll come around to my way of thinking and comprehension, along with anybody else reading this. I should mention that I've been involved in driving issues for most of my career - still am, this is my business (so far as I'm aware, I'm the only participant here who uses my company name as my moniker) and as part of my ongoing education and acquired knowledge base I have spent many hours learning from Traffic Engineers & Traffic Technologists about how and why things have developed over the years.
In fact, I would like to particularly acknowledge my greatest mentor, Len Mierau, who at one time was the Traffic Engineer for the City of North Vancouver.
Let's examine some of your statements though, and why they are - according to law, and actual fact (not just my opinion) mistaken.
The "don't walk" pedestrian symbol for a cross-walk is to tell the pedestrian not to cross primarily because there may be vehicles coming straight through the intersection on a green light at right angles to the crosswalk.
This is an impossibility. The way that traffic lights are wired, a pedestrian could never be faced with a "walk" signal when the cross-traffic has a green light. Meanwhile, if you go back to my original point, in the absence of any pedestrian control signals, then pedestrians must obey the traffic light, right? And if the cross-traffic has a green light then the pedestrians - along with the drivers adjacent to them - are faced with a red light, right?
So, at risk of repeating myself, I'll say it again: What pedestrians need to realize though is that those Pedestrian controls covered in Section 132 were created, not to allow pedestrians to cross the road, but to stop them from doing so in order to facilitate turning vehicles.
Because, if pedestrians are faced with a red light (no pedestrian signals) then they're not allowed to walk anyway. Want to see an excellent example of this (never mind the behaviour actually exhibited) then check out your local (uniquely BC, this) pedestrian controlled, intersection located, crosswalk; one of those things with the flashing green lights on the main arterial and Stop signs on the cross street. Please note that the pedestrian control signals are only on the cross street. Why? Because the pedestrians on the main arterial are required to obey the red light!
An additional secondary reason for a "don't walk" signal arises if there is turning traffic that's approaching the intersection and making a turn across the crosswalk on a green arrow.
Heck, that's not just a 'secondary reason' for a "don't walk" signal, it's an absolute necessity, no argument there.
But! And this is an important 'but' so I'm going to say it louder ... BUT!!! like that ... pedestrian signals were invented, applied, before they ever came up with green arrows. Though absolutely and no argument, those 'protected turn' arrows - originally used to get a few left turning vehicles out of the situation before the oncoming vehicles, and/or conflicting pedestrians could interrupt - are absolutely dependent on the use of not only the solid red light (or solid red with an alternate turn arrow) facing the opposing traffic, but also the existence of the "don't walk" pedestrian signals.
To put it simply, up until the time that they invented them there pedestrian control signals, then the law said that pedestrians were only obligated to obey the solid green or solid red light facing the adjacent vehicular traffic moving in the same direction as the pedestrians.
In this situation, if the light is red and you are a pedestrian, you can't walk. Period. That's the law.
If the light is green, you can, never mind it's been green for eons and may turn amber just as you step off the curb. And never mind if many pedestrians have already been crossing on that cycle of the light, and there are umpteen dozen vehicles - particularly left turning (facing) vehicles not in the intersection, who are wishing to turn left across your path (and remember, they haven't invented green arrows yet) and never mind if this is a large intersection and the pedestrian is 99 years old and shuffling along at a snail's pace ...
Sorry to berate the point, but I have to say it again, because so far as I'm concerned, this is the absolute truth:
What pedestrians need to realize though is that those Pedestrian controls covered in Section 132 were created, not to allow pedestrians to cross the road, but to stop them from doing so in order to facilitate turning vehicles.
And I don't believe that this can be contradicted, given the traffic laws that exist, and have existed basically since the invention of traffic lights (back around 1928 in BC, in case anybody is interested) so there you go.
- Log in to post comments
Many years ago I attended a driver's refresher course. Launching into the subject of "Right of Way" the moderator drew a diagram of an intersection on a blackboard, then added two cars. "Who has the right of way?", he asked. There was a general consensus.
Then he added a couple of Stop signs to the diagram. The consensus began to unravel. Then two more Stop signs and again, dissension increased. He continued with Traffic signals, crosswalks, multiple lanes, etc. Dissension became rampant!
Finally (and to probably quell an impending war) he stated, "Right of Way is an arguing point for lawyers in a courtroom .... BUT YOU'RE JUST AS DEAD!"
A lesson I've not forgotten.
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments
Alright (he said, somewhat grudgingly)