Originally Posted by
wphamilton
People should be walking against traffic when in the street.
It's probably a better policy to not advise pedestrians when we encounter them approaching us against traffic, particularly when we narrowly avoid running into them.
It was not a narrow avoid or near miss. I cut my teeth riding in an area where verbiage from a passerby in this kind of situation is pretty much to be expected. I've also voiced my concerns to fellow drivers about nearly-flat tires or open fuel tank filler neck caps - sometimes I get the finger, sometimes I get a thank you. This guy made the choice to blow up, instead of giving it consideration.
Originally Posted by
RomansFiveEight
Yup, walk against traffic; ride with traffic. In most jurisdictions that's more than just the 'norm', it's also what's legally expected.
"Because it's the norm" is no justification for an old wife's tale. From what I have seen, local jurisdictions commonly require walking against traffic when there is no sidewalk. There is a sidewalk in the area which my post concerns.
For my local area:
300.405. Pedestrians Walking Along Roadways
(1) Where sidewalks are provided it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon
an adjacent roadway. (2) Where sidewalks are not provided any pedestrian walking along and
upon a highway shall when practicable walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder
facing traffic, which may approach from the opposite direction.
Every state I have lived in has nearly exact legislation.
If there's a sidewalk, use it. On every road where I encounter people walking/running on the road and against traffic, there is a sidewalk on one or both sides of the road. Some of these roads allow speeds of 45mph. Norm or not, it's a terrible idea.