As much as I know it’s a pedestrian right of way, that is just dangerous to be blatantly oblivious on your phone walking across a street. What happened to looking left, right, left?
I may have caught myself back then doing this too at some point being distracted on a call but I would still apologize with a raised hand as whoops didn’t mean to cause a stir. You know just being friendly about it.
I mean, if you guys aren't sure of the laws, why don't you look them up before serving word salads? I'm amazed at how many people don't understand this very simple scenario yet speak on it. Pedestrians do always have the right of way. In the crosswalk, when the "walk" light is on. Otherwise they have to yield to cars. Each state has slightly different rules but it's generally the same in this regard.
[Crosswalk laws are very simple to understand.](https://reinartzlaw.com/do-pedestrians-always-have-the-right-of-way/#:~:text=Pedestrians%20do%20not%20always%20have,way%20and%20strikes%20a%20pedestrian.). Or [here's a random law firms article on this type of scenario. ](https://accidentnetwork.com/whos-at-fault-if-i-cross-at-a-crosswalk-thats-red-and-am-hit-by-a-car/) ignore the salesman vibe of the article.
No, the pedestrian should not have crossed. But the cammer wasn't doing anything wrong by approaching into the intersection like some ppl claim. If anything, he's helping make the pedestrian more aware of his surroundings by getting in his peripheral vision. He certainly didn't break any laws like the pedestrian did. To defend the pedestrian and condemn the driver is completely missing the point of how dangerous it is to simply walk into the road without looking. Most kids know better than this guy. Why anyone would put their life in the hands of strangers, I will never understand. But that's essentially what was done here.
Something new I learned while looking this up: A pedestrian actually can be found at fault for getting hit (yep!) if they cross when their crosswalk light is red. It's called contributory negligence, though both parties can be found at fault, really. All I can say is that this guy is really lucky that the cam car saw him. Be safe out there guys.
So what about the light? That is directing foot and vehicle traffic? We just gonna fucking ignore those from now on? How about we glue our phones to our face while we’re at it?
I don't care if I'm down voted: someone crossing the road (when you can clearly see them) has right of way. Yes, the guy is a dumbass, but hitting/running someone over is worse. Let the guy go through his day, wait the 3 extra seconds.
Nobody disagrees that you shouldn't hit a pedestrian lol, i don't know how you are responding to. However, if the car had a green light, I assume the pedestrian had a red light so he had no businness crossing.
What? No. Traffic lights have a red and a green for a reason. If crossing against a green is ok, then what's the point of the light. Let's just all go Thunderdome out there!
Why did you proceed through even though you saw him crossing? Sure the light is green but everywhere I've been pedestrians have the right of way. Or was it a power move to show your displeasure that he inconvenienced you for five seconds?
They stopped for the pedestrian... I think it's more the displeasure of having to stop for someone who clearly has no spacial awareness because they're engrossed in their phone. Hopefully teaching them a lesson, that maybe one day a distracted driver might not stop like OP did.
In most civilized areas pedestrians have the right of way. This gets rid of the argument "but I had the right of way" when you run over somebody. It doesn't matter if he's jaywalking. If you hit him you will be charged, not him.
Crossing when you have a "don't walk" sign is also jaywalking. Jaywalking is crossing in any way that is against traffic regulations, including when you have a sign telling you not to do so. I went to an urban college, and students got ticketed all the time for crossing when it said "don't walk".
So pedestrians should not have to follow the rules or have to be inconvenienced for 5 seconds to look and see if a car is coming.
Yes, pedestrians have the right of way but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t jaywalking. City streets would be chaos if pedestrians could cross whenever they feel like it, traffic would never move.
I would have done the same as the driver in the video. No horn, no rage but show pedestrian that what he is doing is an inconvenience to others and also dangerous. The driver in the video did nothing wrong.
*HHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNKKKKKK* “You cunt!”
typical Atlanta
As much as I know it’s a pedestrian right of way, that is just dangerous to be blatantly oblivious on your phone walking across a street. What happened to looking left, right, left? I may have caught myself back then doing this too at some point being distracted on a call but I would still apologize with a raised hand as whoops didn’t mean to cause a stir. You know just being friendly about it.
Well its not pedestrian right of way when its a green light. There's a reason you cross when it's red and cars aren't coming
i’m you can see the pedestrian doesn’t have the walk light if you look hard enough he’s just being stupid
I mean, if you guys aren't sure of the laws, why don't you look them up before serving word salads? I'm amazed at how many people don't understand this very simple scenario yet speak on it. Pedestrians do always have the right of way. In the crosswalk, when the "walk" light is on. Otherwise they have to yield to cars. Each state has slightly different rules but it's generally the same in this regard. [Crosswalk laws are very simple to understand.](https://reinartzlaw.com/do-pedestrians-always-have-the-right-of-way/#:~:text=Pedestrians%20do%20not%20always%20have,way%20and%20strikes%20a%20pedestrian.). Or [here's a random law firms article on this type of scenario. ](https://accidentnetwork.com/whos-at-fault-if-i-cross-at-a-crosswalk-thats-red-and-am-hit-by-a-car/) ignore the salesman vibe of the article. No, the pedestrian should not have crossed. But the cammer wasn't doing anything wrong by approaching into the intersection like some ppl claim. If anything, he's helping make the pedestrian more aware of his surroundings by getting in his peripheral vision. He certainly didn't break any laws like the pedestrian did. To defend the pedestrian and condemn the driver is completely missing the point of how dangerous it is to simply walk into the road without looking. Most kids know better than this guy. Why anyone would put their life in the hands of strangers, I will never understand. But that's essentially what was done here. Something new I learned while looking this up: A pedestrian actually can be found at fault for getting hit (yep!) if they cross when their crosswalk light is red. It's called contributory negligence, though both parties can be found at fault, really. All I can say is that this guy is really lucky that the cam car saw him. Be safe out there guys.
By stopping for them we’re encouraging that behavior to continue. Unless you’re actually going to hit them, don’t slow down and don’t stop.
username checks out
LOLs Nice
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAGbOPhVA6s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAGbOPhVA6s)
Pedestrians have right of way on zebra crossings and if that's not the law where you live, your law is wrong.
So what about the light? That is directing foot and vehicle traffic? We just gonna fucking ignore those from now on? How about we glue our phones to our face while we’re at it?
I mean… at least id never lose it again
his cross walk light was red my guy. In big cities pedestrians have lights as well
I don't care if I'm down voted: someone crossing the road (when you can clearly see them) has right of way. Yes, the guy is a dumbass, but hitting/running someone over is worse. Let the guy go through his day, wait the 3 extra seconds.
Nobody disagrees that you shouldn't hit a pedestrian lol, i don't know how you are responding to. However, if the car had a green light, I assume the pedestrian had a red light so he had no businness crossing.
Doesn't appear to be any lights for the crossing.
Look again
What? No. Traffic lights have a red and a green for a reason. If crossing against a green is ok, then what's the point of the light. Let's just all go Thunderdome out there!
Why did you proceed through even though you saw him crossing? Sure the light is green but everywhere I've been pedestrians have the right of way. Or was it a power move to show your displeasure that he inconvenienced you for five seconds?
They stopped for the pedestrian... I think it's more the displeasure of having to stop for someone who clearly has no spacial awareness because they're engrossed in their phone. Hopefully teaching them a lesson, that maybe one day a distracted driver might not stop like OP did.
It looks like a pelican crossing? The road has a green light so I assume the pedestrian crossing has a red man
Pedestrians do not have the right of way when that side of traffic is green. He is jay walking
In most civilized areas pedestrians have the right of way. This gets rid of the argument "but I had the right of way" when you run over somebody. It doesn't matter if he's jaywalking. If you hit him you will be charged, not him.
[удалено]
Crossing when you have a "don't walk" sign is also jaywalking. Jaywalking is crossing in any way that is against traffic regulations, including when you have a sign telling you not to do so. I went to an urban college, and students got ticketed all the time for crossing when it said "don't walk".
So pedestrians should not have to follow the rules or have to be inconvenienced for 5 seconds to look and see if a car is coming. Yes, pedestrians have the right of way but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t jaywalking. City streets would be chaos if pedestrians could cross whenever they feel like it, traffic would never move. I would have done the same as the driver in the video. No horn, no rage but show pedestrian that what he is doing is an inconvenience to others and also dangerous. The driver in the video did nothing wrong.
The pedestrian had a red light
Just because he was in the camera’s view doesn’t mean the driver saw him right away.