Author: jeffreyhoward

Last week I had just had a great morning workout and was leaving Cup-A-Joe heading toward the office.  I was in a fantastic move, endorphins and caffeine pumping on all cylinders.  Of course that should have been a sign to me that things were about to go downhill.

Bear with me as I set the scene, because this is important from the perspective of legal analysis (yeah, some of that will be in here):  I was coming out of Kingston Rd., right next to Timberlyne Shopping Center.  There is a stop light there, but no cross walk or pedestrian signals there at Kingston as it meets Weaver Dairy Rd.

I was getting ready to turn right (to head east) onto Weaver Dairy, and my light had just turned green.  So I going to go, right?  No cars coming, so why wouldn’t I?

Well it turned out that there was a tiny little college girl on her morning jog heading toward me (she was going west on Weaver Dairy, approaching my intersection).  I saw her, but she was still on the grass behind the curb and not going fast (she was jogging and was like 4 feet tall, so she wasn’t exactly going Olympic speeds) so of course, I feel clear to go.  I proceed in my turn, only to hear a “thonk” behind my car as I begin to head east on Weaver Dairy.  I looked in my rear view mirror and she was still running and had just started going across Kingston, not missing a beat.  I had assumed at first that I had hit her somehow, but then it hit me (so to speak): The little snot had punched my freakin’ car!  Seriously!  Who does that?

People who know me well will recall that I will not shy away from an argument when I feel like I’m right, so I was all ready to pull over and attempt to discern exactly what this lady’s problem was and how we could get her meds adjusted to avoid me having to give her the what for.  But quickly I realized that that wasn’t going to get me anywhere.  I put on my personal injury lawyer hat and wondered if I had done something wrong.  I didn’t feel like I had done anything illegal, but I couldn’t put my brain on a relevant statute simply from memory.  So then I thought, “this is a perfect blog post experiment – I’ll research it and see if I was in the right or if I owe this little lady an apology!”

So here we are.  And here’s what I found:

§ 20-172. Pedestrians subject to traffic-control signals

(a) The Board of Transportation, with reference to State highways, and local authorities, with reference to highways under their jurisdiction, are hereby authorized to erect or install, at intersections or other appropriate places, special pedestrian control signals exhibiting the words or symbols “WALK” or “DON’T WALK” as a part of a system of traffic-control signals or devices.

(b) Whenever special pedestrian-control signals are in place, such signals shall indicate as follows:

(1) WALK. – Pedestrians facing such signal may proceed across the highway in the direction of the signal and shall be given the right-of-way by the drivers of all vehicles.

(2) DON’T WALK. – No pedestrian shall start to cross the highway in the direction of such signal, but any pedestrian who has partially completed his crossing on the “WALK” signal shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety island while the “DON’T WALK” signal is showing.

(c) Where a system of traffic-control signals or devices does not include special pedestrian-control signals, pedestrians shall be subject to the vehicular traffic-control signals or devices as they apply to pedestrian traffic.

(d) At places without traffic-control signals or devices, pedestrians shall be accorded the privileges and shall be subject to the restrictions stated in Part 11 of this Article.

So what does all of that legal gobbledy gook mean?  Here’s my interpretation:  When there are pedestrian-control signals, they have to be followed.  But that doesn’t matter for my situation because there weren’t any.  So check out section c regarding when there aren’t any pedestrian-control signals… “pedestrians shall be subject to the vehicular traffic-control signals…(which also happens to be, almost word for word, the title of this statute)”  What that means is that when this lady is heading west, and the light for cars in her direction is red, which it has to be since my opposite light for the perpendicular lane of travel, she has a duty to stop, just like motorists do.

Now there is a separate section, 20-173, that talks about yielding the right–of-way to pedestrians when there aren’t any crosswalks and the pedestrian is crossing the road.  But that’s only when they are in the road.  This lady was not in the road.

So what it boils down to is this: Pedestrians have to follow traffic-control signals, and when there is a red light for the cars going in the pedestrian’s direction, the pedestrian has to stop.  Now that doesn’t give motorists the right to run them over when they are in the roadway, and motorists should yield when pedestrians are in the road, even when they are so place due to their own negligence/stupidity.  But pedestrians have to obey traffic lights (and stop signs, for that matter), too.

VERDICT: Jeffy wins!  This runner lady should have stopped her little jog when she saw that her light was red, and I had every right to proceed with my green light and with the pedestrian still being on the curb and not in the roadway.  Moreover, she had no right to punch my shiny, pretty car.  Thank goodness she didn’t leave a dent, or we would have an issue.  Still, that’s not going to stop me from carrying a printed out copy of this statute with me now, so if I see this girl again, I’m going to deliver it to her so she’ll know her responsibilities a little better next time she wants to fight a 2000 lb. vehicle.

Aren’t I a giver?