The new rule, which was approved last November, basically obligates drivers to stop at crosswalks if there is a pedestrian that looks like he might want to cross the street.
Until now the driver had to give right of way to the crossing pedestrian if the pedestrian made his move to begin crossing the street. As soon as the pedestrian sticks his foot into the street n the crosswalk, he has the right of way and the driver must stop.
Now, the driver has to stop even before the pedestrian heads into the street. The driver has to stop if the pedestrian is even thinking about crossing.
The new rule states that the driver must slow down as he approaches the crosswalk if a pedestrian is on the sidewalk near the crosswalk, and if it appears to be that the pedestrian intends to cross the street, he must be given the right of way.
source: Ynet
Anything that improves safety of pedestrians and/or drivers is good. However, I don't see how this enforceable, without clear guidelines of when the right of way must be given and when not.
Let's say someone gets a ticket for not giving the right of way to a pedestrian on the sidewalk. He goes to court and fights it - all he has to say is he evaluated the pedestrian and it did not seem to him as though the pedestrian intended to cross the street. Without clear guidelines, it is up to the driver to assess the intention of someone he see for a few seconds standing on a sidewalk, and how can anyone else say whether he made an honest assessment or not?
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
In this case, the vagueness of the law (which I generally hate) is its power. If a driver is in a situation where the pedestrian's intentions are not clear, he has two options: 1) to spend a few seconds and give the pedestrian a chance, or 2) to save a few seconds, and risk getting a ticket, and then waste a day in court trying to convince a judge to take your word over the cop's about what the pedestrian's intentions probably were, in the absence of any clear legal guidance on how to do so.
ReplyDeleteBefore the law was changed a driver who stopped to allow someone to cross when the pedestrian hadn't actually started crossing was guilty of a traffic offense. The law obligated pediatricians to actually start crossing into moving traffic in order to get the preference to be able to cross. Crazy. Now that insanity has been removed and drivers have the legal right to act with derech eretz and allow any pedestrian wanting to cross to do so and pedestrians don't have to walk into traffic.
ReplyDeleteThe insanity will now be that traffic going 50kmh on a main street will now have to lurch to a stop to let someone cross. The pedestrian now has power to not bother with his own derech eretz and wait until a group of cars pass.
Deleteinterestnig. I did not know it was a traffic violation to stop for someone who had not stepped into the street. I just thought it wasnt an obligation to stop. I am lucky I did not get lots and lots of tickets.
ReplyDeleteMy source is the driving instructor from one of my kids. She was told she would fail the test if she stopped illegally.
DeleteThis is exactly how it works in the UK. The idea is that through this policy the driver becomes more aware of pedestrians trying to cross. That's how it always should be. I think it's very wise. However no policy can be enforced before other driving laws - such as speeding - are enforced. That comes first. When drivers know they can habitually and repeatedly speed without reproach (or if ticketed, they will rarely if ever be prosecuted=no consequence) then they will continue to drive wrecklessly.
ReplyDelete