The Oregon 2011 Pedestrian “Revolution”

 

Why did the man on the curb with the dog glare angrily at the approaching motorist?

Why did the elderly lady with the bag of groceries look wistful?

Why did the child standing on the curb look confused?

What do these people walking all have in common besides trying to safely cross the street? The answer is confusion and frustration over where they stand, or don’t stand, with approaching motorists in order to claim their legal right of way to cross the street in a crosswalk.

Confusion about how to make the cars stop, and how to get drivers to follow the law and provide law enforcement to enforce pedestrian crosswalk laws, adversely affects everything from parents’ decisions on letting children walk to school, to city policies on how to best enforce pedestrian rights.  To the extent that pedestrians and drivers are confused about when, short of running someone down, a driver is required to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, drivers are emboldened to refuse to stop and pedestrians are more reluctant to exercise their legal rights of way to cross the street.

Two Failed Hand Signal Legislative Efforts Preceded the 2011 Campaign

Oregon Walks (formerly Willamette Pedestrian Coalition), a broad-based collection of citizens and government walking rights advocates, had twice attempted to solve the crosswalk dilemma by passing a pedestrian “hand-signal bill”, but failed to gather sufficient votes in the Oregon Legislature in 2007 and 2009.  Despite the state’s  excellent crosswalk law requiring that motorists stop and remain stopped for 2 lanes of travel when a pedestrian was crossing the roadway in a marked or unmarked crosswalk, it was common to see pedestrians standing on the curb or in the gutter with cars whizzing by them.  Oregon Walks recognized that pedestrians needed some way to make the cars stop without having to step in front of approaching traffic.

Background: Oregon Law in 2010

While Oregon law (ORS 811.028) provided pedestrians with the strongest legal rights since the invention of the internal combustion engine, it left pedestrians in the stone age when it came to trying to get the cars to actually stop. See, “The Ebb and Flow of Pedestrian Rights in the Crosswalk”, Oregon Pedestrian Rights, A Legal Guide for Persons on Foot, p. 17-25 (2009). The Oregon law gave pedestrians the legal right of way but no method short of stepping in front of approaching cars to get them to stop.

ORS 811.028. Failure to stop and remain stopped for pedestrian; penalty.  (1) The driver of a vehicle commits the offense of failure to stop and remain stopped for a pedestrian if the driver does not stop and remain stopped for a pedestrian when the pedestrian is:

(a) Proceeding in accordance with a traffic control device as provided under ORS 814.010 or crossing the roadway in a crosswalk, as defined in ORS 801.220; and

(b) In any of the following locations:

(A) In the lane in which the driver’s vehicle is traveling;

(B) In a lane adjacent to the lane in which the driver’s vehicle is traveling;

(C) In the lane into which the driver’s vehicle is turning;

(D) In a lane adjacent to the lane into which the driver’s vehicle is turning, if the driver is making a turn at an intersection that does not have a traffic control device under which a pedestrian may proceed as provided under ORS 814.010; or

(E) Less than six feet from the lane into which the driver’s vehicle is turning, if the driver is making a turn at an intersection that has a traffic control device under which a pedestrian may proceed as provided under ORS 814.010.

(2) For the purpose of this section, a bicycle lane or the part of a roadway where a vehicle stops, stands or parks that is adjacent to a lane of travel is considered to be part of that adjacent lane of travel.

(3) This section does not require a driver to stop and remain stopped for a pedestrian under any of the following circumstances:

(a) Upon a roadway with a safety island, if the driver is proceeding along the half of the roadway on the far side of the safety island from the pedestrian; or

(b) Where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead crossing has been provided at or near a crosswalk.

(4) The offense described in this section, failure to stop and remain stopped for a pedestrian, is a Class B traffic violation. (Emphasis added).

While this law gave the pedestrian a powerful legal right of way that included up to two full lanes in both marked and unmarked crosswalks¹, the problem was HOW to trigger the right of way without moving into the zone of danger in the roadway.  If pedestrians must be “crossing the roadway” in the crosswalk per ORS 811.028 then the man, the lady with the groceries and the schoolchild standing on the curb have yet to trigger ORS 811.028.  Even if they put a foot off the curb, they may not have triggered their right of way.  It was not until they were “crossing the roadway in a crosswalk” that the law granted them their legal right of way to safe passage.  Because no one feels safe walking out in front of speeding traffic, pedestrians stand at the curb, often looking forlorn, wistful or angry as they watch cars approach and pass.  If the pedestrians could only exercise their legal right of way without having to step in front of speeding traffic then pedestrians could signal their intent to cross, watch as approaching traffic slows and stops for them, and then continue.

What does “‘crossing’  the roadway”  mean to a driver in an approaching car (or police officer trying to enforce the pedestrian law)?  The word “crossing” and the term “crossing the roadway” were not defined in Oregon Statutes.  But “crossing” to most people means something like “the act of crossing” and suggests the act of taking steps in the road.  But to take steps in the road means leaving the safety of the curb behind and going out into what could be the impact zone if a driver does not or cannot stop in time. Few pedestrians, or parents instructing their school children on how to safely cross the street, would advise anyone to move across the road without knowing that approaching traffic is going to stop.  This dilemma is precisely why so many pedestrians are frustrated when trying to cross streets where there is no “Walk” signal to help them get started.

The Law Needed a Legal Trigger to Make the Cars Stop

What was needed was a simple definition for “Crossing the Roadway” that included the situation where the pedestrian places a foot (or cane tip or wheelchair or bicycle wheel) sufficiently into the roadway to advise approaching vehicles that they must come to a stop and stay stopped while the pedestrian safely crosses the road, but that also allows the pedestrian to stay far enough out of the path of path of approaching traffic so as not to be hit by the heedless motorist.

What was missing was a legal definition of “crossing the roadway” that allowed pedestrians to trigger the right of way with a single “signal” movement that communicated intent to cross without placing the pedestrian in danger of being hit until it was clear the motorist was slowing down and stopping. The hand signal was a two time legislative loser. What to do?

During a meeting of pedestrian advocates, one of our non-lawyer members said, “We need to redefine ‘crossing’ to include a non hand signal way to make the cars stop.” Then we began to imagine different street-side scenarios.

If the lady with the groceries, or the child  going to school could place a foot, a cane tip, or a bicycle wheel off of the curb where approaching cars could see, slow, and safely stop before proceeding, they would be exercising their legal rights without stepping into the danger zone.

And parents would be far more likely to allow their children to walk if they knew their kids were trained to cross intersections on neighborhood streets without placing their lives on the line to make the cars stop.

A simple legislative fix would need to involve adding a definition of “crossing the roadway” to the law that would provide a clear and safe method to trigger the existing crosswalk right of way.

Oregon Walks and the Pedestrian Movement’s Efforts

The Oregon Walks Legislative Committee took a “less is better approach” We decided the hand-signal bill efforts had failed because the hand signal sounded like it was radically changing the balance of power on the roadway. Instead of creating a different new pedestrian action like the hand signal, maybe we could accomplish the same legal result by incorporating the trigger for the right of way into the definition of “crossing the roadway”.  We created a succinct definition of what “crossing the roadway in a crosswalk” meant that included merely placing a part of, or extension of, the body, including a bicycle, off the curb as follows:

For the purpose of this section, a pedestrian is crossing the roadway in a crosswalk when any part of the pedestrian’s body, wheelchair, cane, crutch or bicycle moves onto the roadway in a crosswalk with the intent to proceed.

ORS 811.028 (4).

The logical import of the definition meant that approaching traffic had to stop if the pedestrian merely placed a toe into the crosswalk, like one would to check the temperature of the water. The law would change the trigger for the crosswalk right of way and not “expand” it in any way.

We figured legislators did not need to worry that this proposed law would make any confusing changes in Oregon traffic law. Under current Oregon (and most states) law pedestrians are required to yield to vehicles when the pedestrian is in the roadway outside of a crosswalk. ORS 814.010.  And the pedestrian is also not supposed to suddenly start walking across the road if an approaching vehicle is “so close as to constitute an immediate hazard”:

A pedestrian commits the offense of pedestrian failure to yield to a vehicle if the pedestrian… suddenly leaves a curb or other place of safety and moves into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. ORS 814.040(1)(a)

The common sense basis for this “Immediate Hazard” law is that pedestrians should not cause approaching vehicles to have to skid to a halt and risk a loss of control by heedlessly walking out into traffic without regard for the speed and distance of approaching vehicles.

We met with legislators who were interested in improving crosswalk safety and told them the new definition merely clarified what it takes to trigger the pedestrian right of way in the crosswalk.  We said that as drivers and pedestrians became educated and learned to follow the new definition, it would be easier for pedestrians to exercise their legal right of way without stepping into the paths of speeding vehicles, making it easier to teach safe crossing practices to school children and elders, and easier for police trying to enforce the law.

We called the proposal a “Crosswalk Safety Bill” and began talking about it with advocacy groups, who recognized that older adults, parents walking with children and people who use a wheelchair, walker or other assistive device would be able to signal to stop and then enter the roadway only after oncoming traffic has actually stopped (rather than trying to stop it by “proceeding” or “crossing” in front of the cars).  For people with mobility challenges, the importance of signaling intent to cross from a place of safety cannot overstated.  When we spoke to law enforcement and other user groups we emphasized even with the proposed law change a pedestrian would still be at fault if they violated other existing statutory prohibitions.

We created a talking points summary and Oregon Walks Director Stephanie Routh led a group of volunteers in making community presentations. Soon, our coalition included the Portland Commission on Disability, Hillsboro Police Department, Disability Rights Oregon, Portland Police Bureau Traffic Safety Division, Oregon Association of Area Agencies on Aging and Disability, Elders in Action, Bicycle Transportation Alliance, Coalition for a Livable Future and Multnomah County Disabilities Services Advisory Council.

As we began previewing the proposed legislation with automobile and trucking industry representatives, it became clear that it would be difficult for them to oppose our proposal because it merely placed the trigger for the right of way on the roadway next to the curb, a natural and logical extension of the spirit of the crosswalk law.  Our pedestrian coalition collected witness testimony for legislative hearings from elders, the disabled, educators and victims of crosswalk collisions.  When it came time for persons opposed to the measure to testify in opposition to our bill in legislative hearings, we realized we had such a broad-based coalition that no one could develop a collection of folks to oppose us unless it was on behalf of the “Association of Dangerous Heedless Drivers” and no such organization existed. Our law was favorably received, passed the legislature, was signed into law by the Governor and went into effect in June 2011. Victory!

The new law provides (with the definition in bold):

(1) The driver of a vehicle commits the offense of failure to stop and remain stopped for a pedestrian if the driver does not stop and remain stopped for a pedestrian when the pedestrian is:

(a) Proceeding in accordance with a traffic control device as provided under ORS 814.010 (Appropriate responses to traffic control devices) or crossing the roadway in a crosswalk; and

(b) In any of the following locations:

(A) In the lane in which the drivers vehicle is traveling;

(B) In a lane adjacent to the lane in which the drivers vehicle is traveling;

(C) In the lane into which the drivers vehicle is turning;

(D) In a lane adjacent to the lane into which the drivers vehicle is turning, if the driver is making a turn at an intersection that does not have a traffic control device under which a pedestrian may proceed as provided under ORS 814.010 (Appropriate responses to traffic control devices); or

(E) Less than six feet from the lane into which the drivers vehicle is turning, if the driver is making a turn at an intersection that has a traffic control device under which a pedestrian may proceed as provided under ORS 814.010 (Appropriate responses to traffic control devices).

(2) For the purpose of this section, a bicycle lane or the part of a roadway where a vehicle stops, stands or parks that is adjacent to a lane of travel is considered to be part of that adjacent lane of travel.

(3) This section does not require a driver to stop and remain stopped for a pedestrian under any of the following circumstances:

(a) Upon a roadway with a safety island, if the driver is proceeding along the half of the roadway on the far side of the safety island from the pedestrian; or

(b) Where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead crossing has been provided at or near a crosswalk.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a pedestrian is crossing the roadway in a crosswalk when any part or extension of the pedestrian, including but not limited to any part of the pedestrians body, wheelchair, cane, crutch or bicycle, moves onto the roadway in a crosswalk with the intent to proceed.

(5) The offense described in this section, failure to stop and remain stopped for a pedestrian, is a Class B traffic violation. [2005 c.746 §2; 2011 c.507 §1]

In the months since we have already observed many pedestrians making use of the “trigger” by placing a foot or bicycle wheel off of the curb onto the roadway surface. Oregon, like most states prohibits vehicular traffic from passing other vehicles stopped for a pedestrian in a crosswalk.². Witnessing use of the practice has a contagious effect on drivers and other pedestrians even when folks have not yet learned about the new law.

Of course the new law presents a much clearer enforcement package to police.  One of the campaigns pursued by advocacy groups such as Oregon Walks is to push for Targeted Pedestrian Crosswalk Enforcement Actions, (use of a decoy to cross a roadway under police surveillance). Offending drivers who fail to stop receive summons to court or traffic school. For a resource collection on how to conduct an enforcement action and examples of traffic school disposition as an alternative to a traffic court violation conviction, download this file: http://goo.gl/Y9jHi.

Conclusion

Advocacy by community groups for increased law enforcement of the pedestrian right of way in the crosswalk is made considerably easier when the law is clarified to show when the pedestrian right of way in the crosswalk begins, and removes law enforcement excuses for failing to ticket offending drivers. Advocacy campaigns that urge police to ticket drivers who fail to stop for pedestrians attempting to cross the street are much more effective when one can point to a statutory directive from the legislature that “Step Off the Curb Means Stop”.

The simplicity of the “Step Off” definition creates an easy standard for public service announcements (PSAs) and in-class learning for drivers, elders, and school children.  No one needs to step into the traffic lane until approaching cars have stopped, a small but important revolution for non-signalized intersection crosswalks.

---