Advocacy & Safety - Act to Protect Motor Vehicles From Dangerous Pedestrians

Anyone seen this yet?

http://www.pressherald.com/news/state/030121pedestrianla.shtml

O'Neil said it's time for Maine to rethink a law that he believes has put too many people at risk of injury or death on the state's streets, particularly in congested downtown shopping areas.

what a load of crap!

but at least people don't seem to be taking him seriously:

But the police chief in Brunswick, one of the state's pedestrian trouble spots, disagrees. "It's absolutely ludicrous to get rid of that law," Chief Jerry Hinton said Sunday.

but that someone would propose a change to eliminate the law supposedly in the interest of SAVING PEDESTRIANS is lucicrous. if it gives people a false sense of security well too bad, but the idea that they would be safer if cars weren't required ONLY IN CROSSWALKS to yeild to them is insane!

Oh my - that (the new bill) is just plain stupid. :rolleyes:

In Montreal, we have the same law, almost all of the pedistiran crossings like that are signposted for both directions on at least one side of the road. But so few people seem to take notice. Sometimes I have seen a woman with a push chair at the crosswalk just next to my appartment and nobody stops even though her intentions to cross are clear. Sometimes, I just walk into to the crosswalk and motion for the cars to stop and wave her across even if I don't actually have to cross the road. When I cross, I just point at the sign as I motion for cars to stop.

I remember vividly the way people drove in Montreal from the 3 years that I drove transports to and from there. The worst were the crotch-rocket motorcyclists on the Autoroute Metropolitain, but the cabbies were nearly as bad. I also noticed that drivers in Dorval were fairly calm, but the ones in Laval and Ville D'Anjou were nearly homicidal!

Next they'll be getting rid of traffic lights because red light runners are causing too many crashes.

The new bill is a joke, but don't be surprised if it ends up being taken seriously. Here on the Gold Coast the trend in recent years has been to remove the old fashioned "zebra crossings" and replace them with signalised ones, meaning that a pedestrian crossing the road has to press a little button, and wait for the traffic lights at the road to change to red before they can cross.

My only question is this: if drivers weren't stopping at the old style crossings, what makes GCCC think they're going to stop at red lights either?

Right Chris!

Most of the crossings here in the U.K. are also press button to activate red light.
This is all very well, but the bias on timing is ridiculous, barely giving able bodied persons time to cross on the wider roads.

Many a time I see handicaped persons or mothers struggling with small children unable to cross in time, and we all know about motorists completely loosing their facility for patience once inside a car.

Only last week an old infirm lady was hit and eventually died from her injuries when she could not cross in time for the light change in my local town,

Surely it is not beyond the authority or who is in control to allow a little more timing space for such eventualities.

Originally posted by willic
Only last week an old infirm lady was hit and eventually died from her injuries when she could not cross in time for the light change in my local town,

But of course, when this happens, we get calls for stupid laws saying that "pedestrians should have to give way on pedestrian crossings" for their own safety/to protect the driver from guilt (strike out whichever does not apply). All of this could be avoided with a little enforcement of existing laws regarding pedestrian crossings and so on. :rolleyes:

Hi,
I'm from Maine, but thats not why I'm replying.
I wonder how many laws get proposed,worldwide, every year. I assume it's a lot. Most of them are dumb ideas, or unworkable or too expensive....and they get shot down. A typical situation is politican Blowhard will be sitting in his office; and get a call from a campaign contributor. We all know the fact that this irate citizen has given
Blowhard a bribe, oh dear, I mean a campaign contribution...has nothing to do with the legislator leaping into action for the first time in a month. Oh sure. He gets something typed up; doesn't even look at it; and submits it. The only surpise to me, in this sequence of events, is the my crappy hometown paper found it.

The story is hilarious.

"It's not a joke bill," said O'Neil, who has no co-sponsors on the measure before the Transportation Committee.
The bill may not be a joke but O'Neil sure is. What a bozo! He belongs in the circus, not the legislature.

Is anyone suprised that the bill had no co-sponsor?

Oh, well, it gave me a laugh two days in a row, so it's not all bad.

I propose we eliminate pedestrians altogether. Give every driver $50 for each pedestrian they eliminate, after producing confirmed evidence the person is dead, as well as proof the driver is actually responsible.

This is another bit of proof that we should hope Bush goes to war in Iraq--no country has ever needed anything as badly as the USA needs to have the average gasoline price double or triple due to too many pissed off Arabs!

Originally posted by JRA
The bill may not be a joke but O'Neil sure is. What a bozo! He belongs in the circus, not the legislature.

This bill is a blatant attempt to relax the already-too-weak concept of accountability for motorists. O'Neil may be a shill for the auto and/or oil industry.

The title of the bill makes one think it is a joke. But I've often wondered if it wasn't more dangerious to have a law that cars must stop for pedestrians. Of course they must because they can't just hit them, but I agree that stating the law too loadly may increase accidents.

The worst solution is those lights with buttons on them.

Some one should do a study of car/pedestri8an accidents in various locals and see what rules result in the least accidents.

Joe

Most pedestrian/ Vehicle laws specifically state that the vehicle must yield the right of way to pedestrians. They do not state that the pedestrian HAS the right of way. If the vehicle does not yield it, you don't have it. This is the biggest problem with pedestrians in my area. They think that they just automatically HAVE the right of way, so they just go, assuming that the vehicle has seen them and is going to stop. I have even heard pedestrians state that, "I have the right of way, if he doesn't stop, I'll sue him..." Duh. I guess you mean your family will sue him.
Granted, I understand that the vehicle IS supposed to give it up, and they should be ticketed for failure to yield, but I DO understand the point of this proposed law change. I don't agree with it, as I believe that there needs to be more education about safety in this area.

As a wise person once said, "When a motorist exits his vehicle, he becomes a pedestrian."

Here endeth the lesson.

Yes ChipROW education is usually the best solution and it certaintly can't be legal to run over people. But a low that enchourages folks to think that they have the right of way and to step out in traffic can only be justified if you are tring to claim that you are doing social darwinism.

Joe

Anyway, all current traffic laws are designed with motorists convenience in mind mainly.

If complying with a traffic law benefits me as a pedestrian then I follow this law. If not - forget about it.

I rely more on eyes, reaction, stereo hearing, technic of safe walking on slippery surfaces, etc.

If we are speaking of a revolution in our views on transportation, way of life, exercise, etc. then we are to think of revolutionary laws, which are created by life itself.