Unless I’m missing something, Del. Jackson Miller’s HB2945 would eliminate the law that requires drivers to yield to pedestrians. I cannot imagine what would motivate him to file such a bill.
Comments are closed.
Open source, procurement, and gov tech.
Unless I’m missing something, Del. Jackson Miller’s HB2945 would eliminate the law that requires drivers to yield to pedestrians. I cannot imagine what would motivate him to file such a bill.
Comments are closed.
Waldo:
I was prepared to quip that it was just another of Miller’s bills designed to make Virginia the “least hospitable place in the universe” for undocumented immigrants (who as you know can’t get drivers’ licenses so they are all pedestrians). Then, I read the bill.
You did miss something. The bill changes the law requiring motorists to “yield” to a pedestrian into one that requires drivers to “stop” for a pedestrian. It strengthens the law.
Guess there were a few too many close yields up there in Prince William.
Claire
If the pedestrian is in the road, isn’t yielding and stopping the same thing? I don’t get it.
Maybe he has a bet on with one of his fellow delegates for how many pedestrians he can bag by year’s end.
But, in reading the full text, it has removed every requirement that a driver to yield to any pedestrian and added a single requirement that a driver stop to any pedestrian in a crosswalk. Or am I misunderstanding?
If we’re required to yield to pedestrians who aren’t in crosswalks, that’s news to me. In fact, I’m almost positive we’re not, because I know of a pedestrian who was charged with failure to yield when she ran out in front of a car and got hit.
Allowing pedestrians to just cross the street wherever they feel like it and holding drivers responsible for hitting them would be a nightmare.
And, yet, vehicles must still be required to yield to pedestrians, because the alternative is death. There are miles and miles of road between me and a crosswalk, and sometimes it’s necessary to cross to, say, check the mail. There’s an old lady a couple of miles down the road from me who can’t possibly cross the road in the time before she can see or hear a vehicle coming. Unless we’re going to put a crosswalk in the middle of Route 20, we’re going to need the law to reflect the importance of not running down little old ladies.
But the fact is, not everybody who drives down Route 20 knows that there is a lady who can’t get out of the road in time, and the speed limit on 20 is 55 mph in most spots, if I recall correctly. If someone is driving 55 mph down Route 20, goes around a curve and suddenly there’s someone in the middle of the road who they can’t stop in time to avoid hitting, should they be charged?
We had the same problem with my grandmother, who lived on a rather busy, yet rural road in Virginia Beach. Eventually we had to move the mailbox across the road so that she wouldn’t have to cross the street anymore. We didn’t expect people to see her and react in time to avoid hitting her.
Of course, drivers should be required to yield to pedestrians. It doesn’t matter what the speed limit is, drivers shouldn’t be driving faster than their ability to stop for hazards. Line of vision is part of this equation. When you drive around that curve and you can’t see ahead, you ought to assume that there may be a child, an old lady, a dog, a deer, a felled tree that you’ll need to stop for.
Drivers AND pedestrians are required to use reasonable care. I think the point of this change is to emphasize the care required of drivers when pedestrians are in a crosswalk, and simultaneously remove the presumption of guilt placed upon drivers if they hit a pedestrian not in a crosswalk.
That doesn’t mean, however, that drivers are suddenly going to target pedestrians or that drivers wouldn’t be found negligent if they hit a pedestrian on a rural road. This means that the driver isn’t automatically guilty of a crime, and isn’t guilty of negligence per se.