8 tickets written so far under Ann Arbor's new pedestrian safety ordinance, police say

shekwan

Sun, Oct 2, 2011 : 2:35 a.m.

It's an awesome concept. Just be nice, and let the person cross. It's common courtesy. The question should never be "How do I not get pulled over?" but instead, the question all drivers should ask themselves is this... "How can I be a safer driver?". It would be nice if pedestrians raised their hands or used some other signal if they intended to cross. Out of town drivers would clearly (much more clearly if not completely) understand this. "Hey, I need to cross, I'm raising my hand to let you know, let me cross safely (for you and me both). MAKE EYE CONTACT. Be safe. Don't be a deer. Don't jaywalk. It's an awesome concept, but it's not worth dying for. People are literally walking out in front of you -- like deer do. This has got to stop before someone dies. NOBODY is a 100% perfect driver. Don't you ever think that. There also needs to a very, very strong emphasis on coming to a stop SAFELY as a driver. This is an extremely unsafe law. I love the concept, I love it when I don't have to wait as a pedestrian. I'm willing to raise my hand. I'm just fine if the driver can't stop safely and I have to wait a little bit longer. As a driver, I can very easily predict the speed of a car in a roundabout. I can very easily tell if I need to yield for a car approaching an intersection. It's traveling 35MPH!!! I can't tell what a pedestrian wants to do, nor should I be asked to guess, when I'm going 35-45MPH. It's not safe. You're asking me to take my eyes off the road and politically fired-up pedestrians are behaving like deer. It's dysfunctional and dangerous. All drivers should do their utmost to never take their eyes off the road. Add the raising of the hand, add the stopping SAFELY to counterbalance people slamming on their brakes for fear of getting a ticket, and have the law only apply at crosswalks under 30MPH. If it's 35MPH, 45MPH, etc... a better idea would be a flashing light that could be pressed.

TinyArtist

Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 1:48 p.m.

Dumb. This law defies common sense and negates personal responsibility (of pedestrians). I sense disasters will befall before it is finally repealed.

Ricardo Queso

Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 11:09 p.m.

Has anyone else noticed the signs on Plymouth Road? "Stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk". No mention of approaching. I see tickets being dismissed.

psaume23

Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 2:39 p.m.

"[P]olice officers have been strategically taking time during their shifts to observe crosswalk behavior at several locations..." Really? How many officers are left to cover the violent crimes (serial CSC, beatings, stabbings, home invasions) plaguing the city in the past few months? For the next elections, Ann Arbor voters should really do their homework and decide if the present administration has displayed competence and has the proper priorities in law enforcement.

A2JD

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 10:31 p.m.

Under the city charter, it's possible to override the city council through an initiative. To get it on the ballot, it would require collecting signatures equal to 20% of the votes cast in the last mayoral election. There were a total of 34,099 votes cast, so it would take 6,820 signatures to get a revision to the ordinance on the ballot. It's doable.

CoolDexter

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.

I'm guessing that most of us are at times drivers, and at times pedestrians. There are so many things about this re-written ordinance that seem misguided from both positions. But one of the issues I would question is the odd pressure it puts on the *pedestrian* to cross while a car is waiting. Example: I'm standing at the corner with my kids. Before we cross, my son bends down (safely on the sidewalk) to tie his shoe. My daughter hands me something. Now, peripherally, I notice a car stop and realize that the driver is waiting for *me.* But I am otherwise occupied with the kids and can't easily communicate this to the driver. Driver gets upset. I try (holding my daughter's toy in one hand and my coffee in the other) to hastily wave driver on. Driver gets more annoyed. Do I cross in a hurry to appease the driver? Do I stand there waiting patiently until my kids are ready to cross? Who needs this kind of minor social-etiquette game-playing? It seems akin to that awkward situation when someone 30 paces ahead of me (with good intentions) holds open a door for me. Now, I must either hurry up so they're not standing there forever. Or call ahead and say "no thank you." Or pretend like I haven't noticed. I'm sure this will make me sound like a curmudgeon. Really, I appreciate courtesy very much. But this imprecise ordinance puts undo pressure on the pedestrian who otherwise has a good degree of autonomy in deciding whether to cross or not.

ChelseaBob

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 3:02 p.m.

KJM- You said; "So this is clearly talking about a signalized intersection, which is not what this ordinance is talking about." yet there is nothing in the ordinance that specifies non-signalized interesctions. In fact the first example in the story is a ticket being written at a signalized intersection. When the law was written in 1956 they did not mention non-signalized cross walks, but a friend of mine on Ann Arbor PD tells me they enforce non-signalized the same way as signalized. Pedestians have right of way. Most of the complaints in this article are about excessive speed, illegal turns and other violations of current laws. I may not be an "expert", but I have enough common sense to ask, why are we passing new laws, when we aren't enforcing existing laws that could deal with the problem? No need to get insulting, just a good lively discussion here.

Mark

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 1:27 p.m.

Maybe they should take note of what's happening in Cambridge, MA, where they have cracked down on cyclists NOT obeying traffic laws: <a href="http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-21/yourtown/30185169_1_riviello-enforcement-program-citations" rel='nofollow'>http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-21/yourtown/30185169_1_riviello-enforcement-program-citations</a>

Ricardo Queso

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 12:51 p.m.

Use the 1% for art budget to fund crossing signals for each intersection. Signals would be designed with a variety of materials, to express the creative nature of the community. Imagine the enlightened statement made when a piece of art such as the city hall urinal is equipped with multicolor lights or even no lights at all.

Marilyn Wilkie

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 2:47 a.m.

ANN ARBOR CITY NOTICE ORDINANCE NO. ORD-10-28 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IN CROSSWALKS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION OF CHAPTER OF TITLE OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF ANN ARBOR. The City of Ann Arbor ordains: Section 1. That Section 10:148 of Chapter 126 of Title X of the Code of the City of Ann Arbor be amended to read as follows: 10:148. Pedestrians crossing streets. (a) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian approaching or within a crosswalk. (b) A pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. THE LANGUAGE BELOW (B) IS CROSSED OUT ON THE ORDINANCE. (b) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger, but a pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield. (a) (c) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect ten days after passage and publication. Brackets indicate deleted language I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was adopted by Council of the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan, at its regular session of July 19, 2010. Jacqueline Beaudry, City Clerk John Hieftje, Mayor Published: on the City's web on 7/21/10

Marilyn Wilkie

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 2:42 a.m.

Posted: Tue, Jul 20, 2010 : 11:41 a.m. Annarbor.com The ordinance change, brought forward by Council Member Carsten Hohnke and Mayor John Hieftje, clarifies the obligation of motorists to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. 10-28 Crosswalk Ordinance Approval Notice According to the new ordinance, when traffic control signals aren't in place or aren't in operation, the driver of a vehicle must stop and yield the right-of-way to every pedestrian not only within a crosswalk, but also pedestrians approaching a crosswalk. "The major change is that you're not required to risk one of your limbs to claim the right to the crosswalk," Hohnke said. "So that if you're intending to enter the crosswalk, if you're about to enter the crosswalk, it now gives police officers the discretion to say (to motorists), 'Hey, you know that person wanted to get into the crosswalk, and I'm going to ask you to provide them the right of way to do that.'"

mw

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 7:33 p.m.

This is nuts. Today, I was waiting at a crosswalk at an intersection with a stoplight -- and a car with a green light came to a dead stop (where the speed limit is 45) and sat there -- waiting for me to cross against the don't walk signal. Which I did not do. Sooner or later, we're going to get some nasty rear-end collisions. It's just not going to work for Ann Arbor to try to have its own set of traffic laws that differ from the rest of the state.

Ming Bucibei

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 5:38 p.m.

AA hates cars and does every thing it can to impede the driving of cars Vote the mayor and city council out next election (all useless idiots) Ming Bucibei

actionjackson

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 4:19 p.m.

To make it easier on everyone involved I believe that we drivers should put our shift levers in neutral and push our cars through the crosswalks. That will keep everyone safe and save the $100 and 2 point fine.

JTBH

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 3:02 p.m.

I think crosswalks should have lights and that a pedestrian who wishes to cross should push a button to activate a red light or blinking red light to stop the traffic. At large intersections where pedestrians get a walk signal, they should have the right of way over turning cars. If the light isn't red, the pedestrian should not walk out in front of cars. On streets like Plymouth road, which has an excess of crosswalks, having the traffic slam to a halt whenever a pedestrian gets close to a crosswalk will cause tremendous problems in the traffic flow. The city needs to improve traffic flow, not make it worse. On a heavy traffic street like Plymouth road, the city should build a pedestrian overpass, not tie up the traffic. The city needs SOME traffic arteries, which flow well and at a higher speed! Plymouth should be 40 mph or 45 mph. Huron parkway should be 40 mph between the Huron river and Boulder drive. It doesn't make sense to have traffic going slowly down this stretch of road. The police have chosen this stretch of road to form speedtraps because the speed limit here is unnaturally low, and it is easy for them to issue tickets here, and collect revenue. Closer to Washtenaw there are more driveways and the 35 mph is OK there. People who cross the street without a "walk signal" should be very careful not to get in the way of cars. Pedestrians who cross at intersections when the crosswalk says"don't walk" and who obstruct the traffic flow should also get tickets. Some people walk right in front of cars which have the green light, like they are lost in a dream.

golfer

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 2:12 p.m.

i agree they have one on huron street by the (homeless shelter) . you push a button a blinking light comes on. then you stop and they cross. need a warning to make this work. i guess the city will say cost to much. rather put cement in the middle of the road. we got cement and bike lanes. need room for cars.

Tom Teague

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 2:56 p.m.

There's surprising middle ground in this discussion: A lot of people who primarily drive in the city are all for rigorous enforcement of the state law regarding crosswalks. A lot of walkers -- people I know who support pedestrian rights -- feel that the new ordinance doesn't make any improvements. The ordinance so vague that it stands to get overturned and then the City is going to be left with no Plan B. You didn't ask, but here's my five point plan for improving pedestrian safety: 1. Repeal this ordinance. 2. Improve sight lines for drivers as they approach crosswalks. 3. Add rumble strips or other *clear* warnings on approaches to cross walks on higher speed roads. 4. Erect more visible signs and warning lights, especially near schools (there are less-expensive alternatives to the HAWK lights). 5. Make examples out of drivers who endanger walkers who are legally crossing streets. The ordinance and current signs are half measures. My issue isn't with the intent of the law, which I think is a well-intentioned idea to make it safer and easier to walk to school or work or for recreation. I know that it's dangerous to walk in Ann Arbor - I've looked up while legally crossing streets to see a car bearing down on me while making a turn onto the street I'm crossing. I've had drivers shout at me when I'm in a legal crosswalk with the light in my favor. But it will be no safer to cross the street now than it was before the law went into effect. In fact, it may be more dangerous: Drivers are going to be just as inattentive, crosswalks are going to be just as hard to see, and pedestrians are still going to dress like stealthy ninjas on dark rainy nights and be invisible to oncoming traffic. Only now, I'm supposed to be able just to step blithely from the curb and walk across? No thanks. Those of who are AA residents should make calls to our Council Members and respectfully express ourselves about this.

Marilyn Wilkie

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 2:43 p.m.

So, here we have overwhelming consensus that this is a bad ordinance. Do we think that anyone who matters cares? Will anything be done to clarify this? My gut feeling is "no". Business as usual. One poster has made 40 comments on this issue, one removed, saying that those of us who question this ordinance just don't get it. I do know that if I have a choice, I will try to avoid driving in Ann Arbor as much as possible.

alternativeview99

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.

I am still unclear what this law actually says. For example, a couple of students are walking up to the corner. I don't know if they are going to walk accross the road or not. Maybe they are walking around the block. Maybe they are going to be meeting a friend on the corner. What should I do? Seems to me we are not enforcing what is already there in the law.....to drive in a "safe and prudent" manner. We are trying to micro-manage behavior and that just can't be done. As I approach an intersection and see a pedestrian who obviously doesn't see me, should I simply ignore that pedestrian or stop? Obviously, I should stop EVEN IF I HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY because it is the SAFE AND PRUDENT.....and reasonable thing to do. We don't want people driving who don't act this way. And, just because there is a 70 per hour speed limit on the expressway, that isn't a license to drive that fast during a snow storm or other bad weather. If there are intersections that are difficult.........PUT UP STOP SIGNS. Of course, this would negate the purpose of the circle flows that have been installed outside high-schools where we allow motorists to simply yield to traffic.....so while all their attention is focused on the TRAFFIC to yield to....they aren't watching or stopping for those kids walking home. My point is, the current law was adequate if implemented appropriately. Why did we have to write a new law that conflicts with what state law and other communities do? Was this really necessary to achieve desired results? If not, then the law should NOT have been enacted. Too confusing for me.

abc

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 2:11 p.m.

As suggested by some, including KJMClark, I found and read 'What Every Driver Must Know'. Relevant to this conversation the book highlights the danger of intersections; making the point that in 2009 27.9 percent of all fatal accidents occur at intersections. Note that this says fatal. It also points out that in 2009 more that 30 percent of all pedestrian fatalities occurred AWAY from intersections. This seems to be saying then that 70 percent of all pedestrian fatalities occur AT intersections. What I seem to be reading is that intersections are dangerous places where both driver and pedestrian need to be on their toes. But this should be obvious as the book has page after page of instructions on how to negotiate crossings. I have to wonder how this new law makes intersections MORE safe. Further reflecting on crossings I was struck by the HAWK signal; a devise used "to alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians". Now why should a driver have to be told that there is a pedestrian who wants to cross a street if he or she can discern that from their car? Obviously they cannot. If a municipality wants to slow down traffic to allow pedestrians to cross more easily they can put in stop signs or other traffic controlling devises. Then every car stops, and when stopped, a driver can much more easily ascertain if there is a pedestrian who wants to cross. No driver can be guaranteed to do this at even 25 mph unless they are in an open field. A pedestrian is easily hidden by trees, building corners, mail boxes, etc. Division is a perfect example of a problem street. How can one see an 'approaching' pedestrian when some buildings are built to the property line AND the block is tree-lined? I am a considerate driver, walker and biker. This law is too much.

Rusnak

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:53 p.m.

"Erica Briggs, a city planning commissioner and board member for the Washtenaw Bicycling and Walking Coalition, lobbied for the ordinance last year." Once again the majority yields to the minority.

Robbo

Tue, Sep 27, 2011 : 12:23 p.m.

Thankfully.

oldgaffer

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:46 p.m.

The ordinance is so vague that no two people can agree on what it means. It is impossible for any driver to know whether a pedestrian is approaching a crosswalk with the intention of using it, or to wait for a friend, or whatever. And from what distance is it possible to determine a pedestrian's intention? And what about the pedestrians who waive the driver on? (I do that all the time when I'm a pedestrian.) A police officer might not see the "waive" and ticket the driver after the pedestrian has melted into the crowd. And here's another problem. A great many pedestrians are texting, chatting on cell phones, or even using iPads, while walking. This makes them poor observers, causes them (especially if texting) to walk very slowly, and almost always holds up traffic so that the engineering-predicted number of vehicles can not pass through an intersection or make their turns. I think the ordinance should be amended to (1) correct the vagueness problem, (2) not require a motorist to stop where a pedestrian is allegedly "approaching" a crosswalk, and (3) make it an offense for a pedestrian to engage in texting, or use a cellphone or other electronic device while walking in a crosswalk or on a public highway. Right now it appears to me that the police officers (City and University) are way over zealous in writing tickets here.

Nicole

Thu, Oct 20, 2011 : 4:51 a.m.

@ swcornell: It's not covered by the state! The state law (and traffic laws in general are governed by the state, by the way, so everyone can be on the same page) says traffic must yield to a pedestrian WITHIN a crosswalk; the A2 ordinance specifies a pedestrian within OR APPROACHING a crosswalk. And they quote Pedestrian Safety as a reason for the ordinance; if anything, it makes things more CONVENIENT (and just for pedestrians), not more SAFE (for anyone).

swcornell

Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 5:45 a.m.

This is just an attempt by the Republic of Ann Arbor to take income away from the state by having a law that is already covered by state law. It does not solve anything. I wonder what happens on Plymouth Rd. (North Campus) where there are bus stops at the cross walks? You can't even tell who's waiting for a bus and who's going to cross!

craigjjs

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:44 p.m.

I guess it was just a coincidence that one of those eight tickets was issued when a reporter was accompanying the officer.

Nicole

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:35 p.m.

This may be a fine idea for downtown driving, but at spots like Plymouth Road, where the speed limit is anywhere from 35 to 45 miles an hour, cars may not have time between spotting a waiting pedestrian and being able to stop for him/her. Further, someone two cars BEHIND a car that decides it's going to stop cannot see the pedestrian or the crosswalk and so has no warning when the cars in front of it are suddenly slamming on their brakes. And someone who is not aware of the new law may very well swerve around the stopped cars to zoom ahead in the free lane—I see it happen all the time—and then what happens to the pedestrian who has already started to cross? All it takes is one car out of four to be unaware of this ordinance, and it becomes obsolete.

Nicole

Thu, Oct 20, 2011 : 4:48 a.m.

Have you ever been in a situation where you're driving in the right lane, the car in front of you slows down to make a right turn, and you decide to drive around them? And from that position, can you physically see a single human through the SUV now directly to your right? If traffic is slow in one lane and the other lane is moving, people go to the lane that's moving to maintain their pace. It's not irresponsible driving; it's a traffic pattern. And I will agree with you that everyone in Ann Arbor (and the state (and the country (and the world))) drives waaaaay too close to each other… but given that that's the way people drive, shouldn't a "safety" ordinance take that fact into account instead of flat out ignoring it? When I heard that there were sexual predators patrolling State Street, I stopped walking there alone at night—NOT because I don't think I have a right to walk along that street, but because I don't want to get raped. Once the sexual predators disappear, I might feel safe walking there alone at night. Just because sexual-preying is illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and lawsuit or no lawsuit, I don't want to get raped. Shouldn't it be the same for pedestrians? As a pedestrian, I don't feel safe stepping in front of a moving vehicle—SO I DON'T, regardless of what I feel it is within my right to do. Just because the cars "shouldn't" be driving so close to one another does not mean they WON'T, and just because they "are legally obligated to" stop for pedestrians waiting to cross the street doesn't mean they WILL. Sorry for the rant. :) I just think that the officials in charge of the persistence of this ordinance are ignoring traffic patterns, as well as the laws of physics.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 11:51 p.m.

If the cars two cars back are using safe following distances, there's no issue. But don't get me started on all the illegal tailgating that goes on around here...

Trepang674

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:33 p.m.

California passed this civilized law and the crazy California drivers complied. Ann Arbor drivers are too aggressive and need to have an attitude adjustment. The option is to drive carelessly close to runners, bikes and walkers and bully them with your 2000lb vehicle.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 4:56 p.m.

I've spent a lot of time in California and my observation is that at crosswalks without signals, most drivers do not stop and the police do not issue tickets when they don't. I expect that is going to be the norm here after this initial push to get the AAPD to enforce this ordinance. But I would like to think that a more reasonable ordinance would work because drivers would voluntarily comply. Believe it or not, most drivers don't actually want to kill any pedestrians and probably are willing to stop for pedestrians especially in clearly marked crosswalks.

CB

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:30 p.m.

So now we are supposed to anticpate whether or not someone is at a corner because they are going to cross the street? Maybe they are waiting for a cab!! This is absolutly stupid. If there is a blinking yellow light most pedestrians are smart enough to know that traffic is not going to stop. Put lights there if you want cars to stop, because I don't want to be rear-ended.

Robbo

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:19 p.m.

This is a great law and I hope iy will be rigidly enforced. C'mon, drivers, show some consideration!

Woman in Ypsilanti

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 4:59 p.m.

This is NOT a great law. It is a seriously flawed law. If you listen to the comments here, you can tell what the main flaws are. When people complain that they are worried that they might be rear ended, what they are saying is that by the time they see a pedestrian and determine if they are actually trying to cross the street, they don't have time to stop in a safe manner. That is a very valid concern and simply dismissing it will not change that. The solution is to make crosswalks more visible and also to have pedestrians signal their intent to cross the street in a way that drivers will see them in time to stop safely and allow them to cross.

amberherself

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:06 p.m.

When I'm waiting to cross at a crosswalk I am glaring at the oncoming cars trying to use my Jedi powers to will them to stop... When they don't, I put a gypsy curse on them for the rest of the day.... Fair warning! Use your common sense, stop when you think people are trying to cross - people like me every morning at the same crosswalk shooting daggers - and if you're unsure and can't stop safely, continue on your merry way. The odds of you getting a ticket over this can't be that great since there isn't enough law enforcement.

swcornell

Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 5:54 a.m.

Lifting your arm and pointing to the other side of the street to take possession of the crosswalk is the norm in Canada & Europe. It will also give the police verifiable intent for your crossing. However, this means you have to pay attention to the traffic, no texting or reading!

Woman in Ypsilanti

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 5 p.m.

A tip: point to the other side of the street when you are ready to cross. That really works for me. I am a pedestrian much more than I am a driver of an automobile and I can say from personal experience, this method works very well.

ChelseaBob

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:02 p.m.

KJM- I'm not sure what the point of your reply to my comment was? I found the law easily. <a href="http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(s12t045523boqe45qnxfat45))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectname=mcl-257-612" rel='nofollow'>http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(s12t045523boqe45qnxfat45))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectname=mcl-257-612</a> It says "The vehicular traffic shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and bicyclists lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection." This applies whether the pedestrians have a walk or don't walk light, whether the vehicle has a green or red. That's the current law, so one wonders why we need another. It's a symptom of the disease that is killing this country. Politicians have a whim, and make it a law. We're buried in their stupid laws, when we don't have resources or will to enforce what's already on the books.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 11:49 p.m.

Maybe I said that in another comment. Read it again. And don't leave off the first part of the clause. That clause is: MCL 257.612(1)(c)(ii): "Vehicular traffic facing a steady red signal, after stopping before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection or at a limit line when marked or, if there is no crosswalk or limit line, before entering the intersection, may make a right turn from a 1-way or 2-way street into a 2-way street or into a 1-way street carrying traffic in the direction of the right turn or may make a left turn from a 1-way or 2-way street into a 1-way roadway carrying traffic in the direction of the left turn, unless prohibited by sign, signal, marking, light, or other traffic control device. The vehicular traffic shall yield the right of way to pedestrians and bicyclists lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to other traffic lawfully using the intersection." So this is clearly talking about a signalized intersection, which is not what this ordinance is talking about. It's a symptom of the disease that is killing this country. People who really don't understand what they're talking about continue on as though they're experts.

Leonard

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:53 p.m.

While I respect the underlying intention of the law, I have myself been in situtations where I am traving 40+ miles an hour (Plymouth Road between Green and Huron Parkway) where a few of these cross walks exist. This is a heavy traffic area and there are times that I will see a pedestrian last minute. I certainly could slam on my breaks and stop cold. However, there would most surely be an accident behind me. When I am driving, I am aware of my surroundings, however I also don't expect sudden and unexpected behavior from other motorist. Slow down.... yes.... complete abrupt stop.... no. We all drive every day and we are responsible for our vehicles, but unless this law takes into account the safety to me (and other vehicles) of yielding to the pedestrian, it is more dangerous than helpful. I do appreciate the law and what it is trying to accomplish, however, it may really be a "revenue generator" for the city.

CincoDeMayo

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:13 p.m.

In theory, I strongly support this law. In reality, I would love to be able to support this law. On Washtenaw Ave. west of Huron Parkway, in the dark at 9;00 at night, in 45 mph traffic, I can not safely see the person in time and stop without risking lives. Even if it had been a crosswalk with overhead lighting, (which it isn't), I don't feel like safety would have been increased. The type of lighting being used almost makes visibility worse due to the glare and odd shadows it creates. I feel like The City of Ann Arbor is encouraging people to feel safe in locations that just aren't safe for crossing. There are some accommodations that just must be made first, beginning with the location of the crosswalks. I was nearly rear ended on Plymouth Rd. when I stopped. But worse, it turns out they were waiting for a bus. Before encouraging more dangerous behavior by handing out tickets, these areas, minimally need to be addressed. And that's coming from a "pro walker."

swcornell

Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 5:58 a.m.

This bus stop on Plymouth must be moved for this law to make any sense!

SB

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 10:32 a.m.

More accidents will be caused? Really? Show me the traffic study on that. I bet you can't. But if you still think (read: irrationally fear) this is going to cause more accidents, maybe you should try slowing down and obeying the speed limit and being aware of your surroundings. You know, kind of like you're supposed to when you're driving a car. And if you think the problem isn't you but other people, well maybe you should walk. As someone who actually lives IN the city of Ann Arbor and walks, bikes, and drives around here on a daily basis, I think the law is great.

Roll My Eyes

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 9:33 a.m.

When I become a member of your traffic study, I'll send you my medical bills.

grimmk

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:16 p.m.

I think you are missing the point that not everyone is a law abiding citizen. Too many times people will tail gate the car in front of them and drive well over the posted speed limit. This is the norm, I'm afraid. So when you have to suddenly slam on your breaks and come to a stop, while you might be doing it gradually and safely, the person behind you might not be. I had to slam on my breaks yesterday because the car in front of me decided it wanted to turn at the last second. I was able to stop easily, the car behind me had to swerve and laid in on his horn. Who's to blame? Or the guy driving at 60 miles an hour in a 45 zone down Packard in the middle/turn lane. He did a hair pin turn and somehow did not hit a truck to avoid the light at Hewitt, went around the corner, shot across Hewitt, into a parking lot and then out again onto Washtenaw. I was gobsmacked.

ChelseaBob

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:10 p.m.

SB- Why do you think this will work if people are already ignoring speed limit and crosswalk laws on the books? How about enforcing what we have?

Don

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 11:30 a.m.

more of our city's wonderful laws. This is almost as good as the city planners that decided to get rid of all our double lane roads so they could put in bike paths! what a joke. now every time I drive down stadium, someone almost always come close to getting in a wreck. Way to go Ann arbor, it just goes to show you that if you wan to pass new unneeded laws, just run for office. I spent the the last couple of days, trying to follow the law, it is uncomfortable and a dangerous thing to do. thanks for making me feel unsafe driving around town. a very silly law

Don

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 11:23 a.m.

more of our city's wonderful laws. This is almost as good as the city planners that decided to get rid of all our double lane roads so they could put in bike paths! what a joke. now every time I drive down stadium, someone almost always come close to getting in a wreck. Way to go ann arbor, it jjust goes to show you that if you wan to pass new bazzarire laws, run

Borisgoodenough

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 8:50 a.m.

Yesterday I was headed north on Ashley, near Ann, during afternoon rush hour. There's neither a traffic light nor a stop sign at that intersection -- but there is a lightly-marked crosswalk. A pedestrian was "approaching" its curb cut, looking down, a cell phone glued to his ear. Mindful of the new ordinance, I felt obligated to hit my brakes without warning -- and narrowly avoided getting rear-ended by the SUV forced to slam on the brakes behind me. The pedestrian, who by then had stopped at the street's edge, looked up from his call, noticed two vehicles stopped for him, and started across the street. After this first experience, I can't help but conclude that a law requiring drivers to take this kind of unanticipated action will cause many more problems than it will solve. It makes sense to stop for someone actually crossing at a crosswalk. It makes no sense for drivers to have take sudden actions based on their best-guess-scenario on the intentions of someone on the sidewalk, who may not even be visible to drivers behind you.

Tru2Blu76

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 6:35 a.m.

Revolutionary! Outrageous! Unheard of! Well... guess what, the basic principle behind this ordinance is one which has been around a long time -- only it's been ignored. That is, the state has always taken the position that drivers are responsible for heeding driving conditions and controlling their vehicles accordingly. Oops! Some folks forgot that the "conditions" include the presence of pedestrians! There goes that minute and a half they thought they were saving on their way to work, shopping or... to the Red Box movie dispenser. As for rear-ending, if drivers are going the speed which is appropriate for a stretch of roadway with pedestrian crossings: there'll be no rear-ending. Apparently the National Highway Safety people will have to force car makers to install alarm clocks in every motor vehicle: set to go off every three minutes. Wake up call!

Anthony

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 6:22 a.m.

i ride my bike around town all the time. i rode up and down washington, past seventh, every day all summer, and never once did i think to bike out into traffic despite the clearly marked signs urging me to. you know why? cause i don't endanger my life by playing in traffic to make some sort of point, or because some law told me to. and you know how many cars slowed down as i approached the intersection? yeah, none. thanks, ann arbor signage, for worthless advice to get me killed. all it takes is one motorist unaware of the local ticketing policy.

gofigure

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:15 p.m.

"all it takes is one motorist unaware of the local ticketing policy." All it takes is one cyclist unaware of their surroundings...". YOU may very well obey the traffic laws. However, there are as many cyclists out there that don't. Having lived in A2 for more than 30 years there has been a dramatic change in the way cyclists "SHARE" the road. I've seen them darting in and out of traffic, not stopping at lights -just slow down and if it's clear continue thru, going up on the sidewalk to get around a car and going right back out into traffic. I realize we as drivers are supposed to watch out for you but, cyclists are supposed to SHARE the road not act as if they are entitled to it. Seems like it mantra is -- do as I say, not as I do.

Robert

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 5:10 a.m.

How close to a crosswalk is "approaching" a cross walk? Drivers have to watch everything going on on the road, and also watch every sidewalk and try to determine what the pedestrian is intending to do? And the three officers we have left are ordered to do this while CRIME keeps going up? This city government has got to go. I HOPE EVERYONE WHO IS UNHAPPY WITH THEM VOTES! And not just complains on here.

Long Time No See

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 3:55 a.m.

Since I've only replied to other comments so far, I just wanted to say a couple of things in the main comment thread. Let me be clear - I am more often a pedestrian or bus passenger than I am a driver in this town. I live and work within the city of Ann Arbor. I walk and and take the bus to/from work every weekday, and I have been doing so for over twenty years in this town. During a normal week, I probably only drive once or twice, if at all. My commute is currently 35-45 minutes, so don't think that I just walk down the block to get to work. I cross several very busy streets as a pedestrian every weekday, and only some of those crossings have traffic signals. However, as a person who is primarily a pedestrian in this town, I think this law is ridiculous and dangerous. The signage provided by the city conflicts with the law. At many locations, there are bus stops at the same locations as cross walks. There are intersections on campus where this law is practically unenforceable. At many times during the day, the police could ticket *every* UM and AATA bus that drives by the Union, along with pretty much every car. Will they do so at that location? I would *love* to see them try. In fact, I suggest that everyone make that request of the Ann Arbor police department. Let's see what happens. A law that cannot be consistently applied is a BAD LAW. This law *might* be OK out where there is less going on, where there aren't cars pulling into or out of parking spaces, where there aren't students dashing across the street at random locations, where there aren't bicyclists (without helmets) squeezing in between lanes of traffic or between parked cars and traffic and then blowing through stop signs, where there aren't cars frequently stopping suddenly in front of you for a variety of reasons (looking for parking, saying "hi" to friends, asking for directions, etc.). Downtown and on campus, though, it's very dangerous to force even more distractions on drivers.

Marilyn Wilkie

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 2:20 p.m.

Long Time No See - you explained the problems with this designer law very well. Thank You!

Peter Baker

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 3:11 a.m.

I'm willing to bet that if the police had been paying attention is drivers and their interactions with pedestrians BEFORE this new law, they would've found just as many infractions in the same amount of time. This is just them opening their eyes to what's going on in the streets. I'm all for more police enforcement of ALL traffic laws – and yes everybody – jaywalking included.

Peter Baker

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 3:12 a.m.

*attention TO drivers, that is

AlfaElan

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 3:09 a.m.

I htink more of the people complaining about this should read the State publication "What Every Driver Must Know".

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 11:40 p.m.

Marilyn - "Haven't seen [What Every Driver Must Know] in years." Yeah, it shows. AlfaElan is absolutely right. People have been filling in the blanks with their personal prejudices for years. Here's your personal copy: <a href="http://www.mi.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1642-103522--,00.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.mi.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1642-103522--,00.html</a> And the "Pedestrians" section (p103): "As a driver, watch out and always yield the right-of-way to people walking, jogging, biking, crossing a street in the middle of a block, or darting from between parked vehicles. Watch for them when entering a street from a driveway or alley, at stop signs, traffic signals, roundabouts, crosswalks, and intersections."

Marilyn Wilkie

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.

Haven't seen it in years. Did you just happen to get your driver's license? That's where you see it. THIS law that Ann Arbor designed won't be found in that publication. It is a designer law made up just for Ann Arbor, thus, no signs available that explain it.

ocho

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 2:42 a.m.

Seriously? Is there that much confusion over this issue (wording of the signs aside which clearly don't match the law). I've lived in Toronto and a friend lived n London for years - we haven't been hit nor have we witnessed rear-end collisions. Peds don't leap out into traffic, cars aren't expected to 'slam not the brakes.' peds intending to cross approach normally but with eye on traffic; drivers are mostly aware of their intent. If any confusion exists it's usually due to indecisive peds - no big deal, when they decide on their course they again look to see if it's clear. It's not rocket science. That being said, the signs are incorrect and bus stops should not be coincident with a crossing. Also, Canada and London have better and more consistent markings (traffic control devices are relatively similar coast to coast - why not ped crossings?)

Rici

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 9:15 p.m.

Very few bus stops are coincident with crossings. The people making that point are probably not bus riders!

Roll My Eyes

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 2:12 a.m.

Yesterday I watched at Williams & Maynard a westbound driver stops in the middle of the street to let someone cross, the driver to his right, seeing him stopped (in the middle of the intersection mind you) thinks it's a great idea to proceed with his lefthand turn, even though it requires him to swerve TOWARDS the pedestrian crossing, to make his turn onto eastbound William. When I walked home (because there's no freaking way I'm riding my motorbike in this CF riddled town) I waved drivers on so that they weren't in peril of being rear ended during the 5:00 traffic. I'm a big girl, and can determine on my own when it is safe or no safe to cross - I don't need a local ordinance to hold my hand. What a complete waste of resources. I hope someone sues the cr@p out of the city. It would almost be worth the higher taxes.

Marilyn Wilkie

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.

When you said you "waved them on" all I could think of was "Nope!". I'll wait because I certainly don't want a $100 ticket and 2 points on my drivers license AND an increase in my insurance rates to boot. Don't want to have to try to explain my way out of any ticket due to your kindness.

pchbob

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 2:03 a.m.

Close to a year ago my wife was ticketed for this with a bike about to enter the cross-walk at Packard and Stadium. Since that time I have watch COUNTLESS, and I mean COUNTLESS people turn on streets before/with people in the crosswalks; this is an absurd law. How about doing something at Geddes near the entrance of Gallup Park similar to the Huron St crosswalk by the YMCA where a stop light gets activated?? A biker will soon be hit here, no question.

grimmk

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:29 a.m.

I did a little test today. Granted, I live in Ypsi, but no less than THREE people just randomly walked out in the middle of the street in front of my car. THREE PEOPLE. They saw me coming, looked at me, and just wandered off into the middle or the road. No cross walks. No lights. Not even on the corner of an intersection. Just some stupid vain hope that the car they are walking in front of will STOP. And when I went and stopped for random people crossing the street in the middle of the road, they stopped too. They got mad at me for stopping to let them pass. They motioned me on. I really confused the person behind me as they swerved to miss me. What does this all mean?! I have no idea. Just that people will do what they do. No new law is going to help with that. And to the bicyclist who ran that red light. You were a SECOND away from being pulverized by my front bumper. There was a LARGE truck to the left of me. I could not see you. He almost hit you too. RED means STOP if you are going to use the road. So glad I hesitated to turn right a few seconds after the light turned green.

Rici

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 9:14 p.m.

Neither the state law nor the AA city ordinance require a car to stop for jaywalking - which is what those people were doing if they were wandering into the middle of the street (and not at an intersection). They were in the wrong.

RJA

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:11 a.m.

I don't go into Ann Arbor often, but now it will be even less. (although, I like the new ordinance) to keep people safe.

MIKE

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:56 a.m.

I think a lot of people here are not understanding one big problem with this law. Picture this:heavy rush hour traffic on Plymouth. One person approaches. Traffic stops. Ten seconds later, another approaches. Traffic stops again, but this person was just stopping to check his watch for the time. Twenty seconds later, another person approaches, traffic stops again. This person crosses. Twenty five seconds later, a fourth person approaches and stops traffic, but he's just waiting for the bus. By now, traffic is backed up for 3/4 of a mile. Had the two people who had actually wanted to cross just waited for less then a minute, traffic would have flowed naturally, and there would now be a break where they could cross. The two traffic signals walking distance away in either direction help create that break in traffic.That's how it works all over the country.

Tom Hollyer

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:54 a.m.

Seems to me this is all about peoples' expectations of others. Keep them low and you will be fine. I am both a driver and a pedestrian in downtown. Every day. As a driver, I never trust pedestrians. I stop for pedestrians, even when they are not where they are supposed to be. When I approach crosswalks in silly places, like Main Street between Liberty and William, I look very carefully and I stop if it looks like someone is going to step into it. This has cost me, oh, maybe an extra hour of the 20 years I have lived here. As a pedestrian, I never trust drivers. Unless I make eye contact or they are clearly stopping, I do not step into the street. This has cost me, oh, maybe an extra hour of the 20 years I have lived here. Why anyone would assume that a driver sees you and knows to stop? Only a fool would do so. It's pretty simple... just assume the other guy will not do what they are supposed to do and you will be fine. It'll cost you a couple hours every 20 years.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 11:34 p.m.

Yeah, "trust but verify" or "yeah, I trust them as far as I kind throw them" are good rules to follow.

CincoDeMayo

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:55 p.m.

Or one person following the law.

a2why

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:03 a.m.

This sounds great... except... that unfortunately, not every driver or pedestrian thinks like you. However, do you believe that we'll get everyone thinking that way? All it takes is one idiot to cause a disaster.

a2why

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:49 a.m.

So earlier today, I stopped at a crosswalk and the waiting pedestrian waved me by. Seeing that the pedestrian wasn't crossing, I proceeded through the crosswalk and noticed in my rearview mirror that the pedestrian then crossed. Did I break the law there?

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 11:32 p.m.

No, you didn't. You complied with the law - thanks!

Long Time No See

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 3:16 a.m.

I assume so, but I'd like to know what the answer to your question really is. If I'm a pedestrian and I wave a driver through an intersection that I am waiting to cross, am I a co-conspirator in their crime?

townie54

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:46 a.m.

yea if there are little old ladies crossing the street we can just throw our vehicle into park and get out and help them cross like they taught in boys scouts.And the rainbow will come out and everyone will be smiling and enraptured.The line of cars behind us will all be smiling and waving while birds land on their shoulders.Just another perfect day in fantasyland Ann Arbor

swcornell

Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 6:10 a.m.

Exactly, 27 sq.mi. surrounded by reality!

aareader

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:42 a.m.

This law is begging for a court fight. Soon someone, a lawyer, will figure out the law is bad, probably in conflict with state law and ripe for a challenge. Maybe one of the folks with a ticket may take it to an attorney for an opinion. A look at the picture of the sign, in yesterday's article, about stopping for pedestrians appears to state they needed to be in the crosswalk BEFORE a car had to stop. Plus many of the other posters noted trying to quickly stop from 40 MPH creates unsafe conditions for cars and pedestrians. I believe everyone wants to be safe toward pedestrians in all conditions. This law, in my opinion, is very counter productive toward that goal. Ann Arbor Council needs to revisit it and apply common sense.

jcj

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:21 p.m.

Of all the ordinances this city has this will be one of only a few enforced. This city does lots of lip service to things so they can appear to be politically correct. But when the lime light is off they do nothing!

Urban Sombrero

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:09 p.m.

One comment I want to add, directed at the police: If you guys want some easy pickings, hang out on Platt, by the Williamsburg entrance of Colonial Square. I was on my way home (I live in the Square) and saw 2 people standing at the crosswalk. The 6 cars in front of me (yes, I counted) just wooshed by them, no cares in the world. I slowed down, and so did an Ann Arbor school bus going the opposite way, so they were able to finally get across. Trust me, easy ticket money! Hardly anyone stops for that crosswalk! (My son takes the AATA bus home from Huron every week day, and has to use that crosswalk. He says it takes him forever to get across.)

CincoDeMayo

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:52 p.m.

Those pedestrian islands there have been a big help in getting across Platter. (Not to take away from the still existing problem that your son is apparently having.). Let me just say that I stopped for pedestrians there loooong before this law. Especially as so many need to get to the other side to get the bus which does NOT like to wait!

Urban Sombrero

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:44 p.m.

Well, considering that the law says you're supposed to stop, I'd say "Too long". I asked my son about that crosswalk. He says some days they have to wait 5-10 minutes to cross. That's ridiculous.

MIKE

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:38 p.m.

Finally? How many hours did it take for 6 cars to "whoosh" by?

nixon41

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:06 p.m.

As a child were you not taught to cross the street when there were no cars or cross with the light. That's the problem with the USA, we are not doing what we are supposed to do. If everyone followed the ten commandments, we would need prisons, have respect for one another, etc. Get the point?????

alfonso

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:54 p.m.

The ordinance is very poorly written and should be revised, but our city attorney and council are seemingly incapable of drafting a clear and understandable ordinance . How is a driver to know whether some pedestrians (in the student areas especially) are "approaching" a crosswalk with the intention of using it? The new crosswalk on Washtenaw, to the west of Arlington, is not at an intersection or a street, and is so located and signed that one lane can stop while vehicles in the adjoining will not, thinking that the vehicles in the adjacent lane have stopped because there must be an unseen lead vehicle which is signaling an intention to turn onto Arlington. I predict that someone will be very seriously hurt or killed at this intersection. The city's traffic engineers are a bunch of rank amateurs. So is the city attorney.

Sandra Samons

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:46 p.m.

I think this ordinance is unclear and in some cases either unsafe (i.e., drivers being so uncertain about who has the right of way that they brake in traffic) or an impediment to the smooth flow of traffic. What exactly constitutes a crosswalk? Do pedestrians have to obey traffic signals the same way vehicles have to? When pedestrians are lingering at an intersection, how can a driver tell if they are just standing there chit chatting or if they are waiting to cross? And, good grief! Don't I ever get a chance to just be nice or courteous or thoughtful because I'm being forced to do it? There MUST be a better way than this ordinance! I realize that it can sometimes be a challenge for a pedestrian to cross a busy street. In the past, when I was on foot I have always just waited for a break in traffic, or if the traffic was heavy enough there was bound to be a traffic signal at least in the next block where I could walk to it for help in crossing.

woody

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:34 p.m.

Has no one ever driven in Ontario? They have such a law - as does California- and drivers abide by it. Pedestrians can cross easily. Just relax and pay attention when you drive . You'll get used to it. It isn't hard.

pegret

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 2:32 p.m.

California also has a law forbidding jaywalking. And they do ticket pedestrians for either crossing against the light, or where there is no crosswalk. Can you imagine how much money that would generate from campus alone?

russellr

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:07 p.m.

I can't help but think a 22,000 pound AATA bus going down Washtenaw at Arlington won't have time to react. Wait until a serious accident happens than you can be thrilled with your $800.00 Sometimes I'm ashamed to live in Ann Arbor because of the stupidity

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:24 p.m.

I've found the AATA drivers to be particularly good about this ordinance. I just wish they'd get out of the bike lanes and pass cyclists safely. I'll be happy to wait for the "serious accident", which I don't expect will happen. In particular, it would have to be more serious than the two young women being killed trying to cross Plymouth at the Islamic Center a few years ago. "Sometimes I'm ashamed to live in Ann Arbor because of the stupidity" - completely agree with that, but I figure most of the griping about the ordinance is from out of town motorists who don't walk farther than the distance from the front door to the driver's seat.

nixon41

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:04 p.m.

If this is the law, it should be in ALL states.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:26 p.m.

I believe it's based on a law from Seattle, and is being considered in the next round of revisions to the national Uniform Vehicle Code. You may get your wish soon!

Chris 8 - YPSI PRIDE

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:58 p.m.

Furthermore, if you live in one of the zip codes that this ordinance is being enforced in, watch your insurance rates at your next renewal. The insurance industry does base your rates on the zip code you live in. As soon as they do a study on this law I can guarantee anyone who lives in a zip code starting with 48101-48108 will have an increase based on the risks of the many rear end accidents and car vs pedestrian accidents this will surely cause.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:21 p.m.

Keep dreaming.

Blanch DuBois

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:53 p.m.

To those comments regarding *distracted* pedestrians, how many times when you're driving do you; -check your phone -reach for your coffee mug -do a quick check of the back seat area for your jacket, briefcase, umbrella, etc -change the radio station or cd -eat the food you just picked up at the drive-thru -touch up makeup in the mirror -pet the dog -stop the kids from arguing -dig around for a cigarette -now find the lighter -try to clean up the spilled coffee or food All while being in *control* of thousands of pounds of metal traveling at ...well whatever speed you feel like traveling at right now. As for the comments about not being a mind reader and not knowing someone's intentions.....I would just like to suggest to *many* of my motorist friends out there, next time you purchase a vehicle think about paying extra and upgrading to one with the turn signal option.

nixon41

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:07 p.m.

A State Trooper was killed because a women was trying to pick up a french fry that dropped on the floor of the car. Pay attention while you're driving!!!!!

Chris 8 - YPSI PRIDE

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:52 p.m.

As soon as I get rear ended (it's immenent now) I am going to use the Bernstein advantage. This law is going to make quite a few liability attorneys very ambitious and myself and many others a nice windfall.

Let me be Frank

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:51 p.m.

"Approaching a crosswalk" is a term of "art". Aha, just what the City needs; more art! Ambiguity in the law leads to ambiguous enforcement of the law.

james

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:45 p.m.

..and how many tickets were issued to the hundreds of Jaywalking students and pedestrians making it unsafe for drivers by deciding to walk where there is no crosswalk?

MIKE

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 4:27 p.m.

KJM: They're equally dangerous. Both can result in injuries or death. So both should be enforced equally, $100 fines and 0 points.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:49 a.m.

Let me add, however, that part of the reason we make laws is to ensure safety as well as reasonable use. So in the case of pedestrians crossing illegally in the downtown, how dangerous is it? In the case of motorists not yielding to pedestrians, how dangerous is that? We mostly know the answers to those questions. In the downtown, the pedestrians mostly don't jump out in front of speeding cars. Anyone who says most pedestrians by campus are throwing themselves in the teeth of danger is being dishonest. Most of the students cross in crosswalks. The others check enough to make sure they aren't going to get hit. The worst that usually happens is a motorist is delayed. I agree that it's a pain, but for the most part, injuries are not a major issue. OTOH, we also know what can happen when motorists don't yield to pedestrians - we had two pedestrians killed on Plymouth Road a few years ago. That was the impetus for lots of additional marked crosswalks, pedestrian islands, and eventually this updated ordinance. So the worst that can happen is people die. So which is worse, some people being delayed by equal numbers of other people in the downtown, or some people dying? I would argue that they're both wrong, and we *should* ticket jaywalking in the downtown, but I think it's disingenuous to claim that the drawbacks are equal. Even if there are rear-end crashes, which I don't really expect much of, I'd be happy to give up our car to bring back those two dead young women. Safety should always trump convenience.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:21 p.m.

Geez, give me a second to get to it! Yes! Write them tickets! There, you happy? I said that above.

james

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:10 p.m.

Every time I mention this, the people that want this law are strangely silent. I guess it's not about safety, because if it was, there would be more concern with the pedestrians making it unsafe for everyone. Many people from Ann Arbor have this belief that they have the right-of-way at all times as a pedestrian. Every time I go downtown, there are tons of people that cross at major intersections when the lights clearly say "do not walk". Where is the out cry? Where are all the people saying that these people need to be ticketed for the safety of our citizens? I predict that if they were ticketed, there would be riots in the streets.

leaguebus

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:44 p.m.

I just don't understand why it is so hard for someone driving a car to yield to someone on foot or a cyclist. How long does it take for a person to cross the street? When I drive my car, I have the radio on, air conditioning, comfortable seats, and all the comforts of home. Why is it so hard to slow down or stop the rolling living room for a few seconds to allow a pedestrian to cross the road? Most of the people complaining about this new law act like their vehicles are emergency vehicles and consequently they should never have to stop when driving. Get a grip, it is just common courtesy to allow a pedestrian or cyclist to cross a road, especially if it is raining or very cold outside. I ride the bus and get off on Miller at about 5:45 PM. I have had to wait as long as five minutes to cross Miller as there is a serious amount of westbound traffic and whenever it clears, the eastbound traffic starts. There are no crosswalks and I can count on no one stopping to let me cross. Please, why is it so hard to help a pedestrian in a dangerous situation?

Woman in Ypsilanti

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 5:19 p.m.

The reason it is difficult for drivers to yield to someone on foot at a crosswalk is that it isn't always easy to see the pedestrian in time to stop safely. It is much easier for a pedestrian to see a car than the other way around. Unless this issue is addressed, there simply will not be widespread compliance with this ordinance even if the AAPD put all of their time into enforcing it.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:54 a.m.

Um James, could you please point out where on Nixon Road, within Ann Arbor city limits, there is a mid-block crosswalk on a section with a 45mph speed limit? And as I said before, there are no 10mph zones. State law allows for 15mph zones within parks, and 25mph zones in business districts, residential areas, and school zones (sorry, left that out before.) So by saying 10mph zones, you're saying you'd be OK with this ordinance if it didn't apply anywhere. Cute.

MIKE

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:41 p.m.

Just walk down to the crosswalk. I'm sure there's one nearby.

james

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:55 p.m.

"There are no crosswalks and I can count on no one stopping to let me cross. Please, why is it so hard to help a pedestrian in a dangerous situation?" The law doesn't apply to this situation anyway. Drivers only have to stop for people at crosswalks. Jaywalking laws are in place for a reason. If this law only applied to 10MPH zones, I would have no problem with it. But, there are plenty of roads (like Nixon) where the speed limit is 45MPH. By the time you noticed the pedestrian, it's unsafe to stop. I'm not going to risk getting into an accident for a pedestrian that is "approaching" a crosswalk. This is in place because the city won't pay for proper stop lights.

obviouscomment

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:43 p.m.

instead of making an ordinance that differs from the original law, why didn't they just put forth the effort to actually make the original law known and enforce it...then you wouldn't have this issue

obviouscomment

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:51 p.m.

personally, i don't want to stop for pedestrians...they should have to wait just like we do...but if it was safe to cross and they did and i approached the crosswalk before they were through, i would wait...because to me that is common sense, but people these days seem to be missing that part of their brain. it seems the point of this ordinance is really to keep people from having to wait to cross the street, which is ridiculous because why shouldn't they have to be patient like the rest of us? the crosswalk in front of the union keeps coming to mind because if people are actually following the ordinance there then traffic must be at a complete stand still between 3pm and 6pm at least.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:20 p.m.

Hahahaha! That's a good joke! These people would be just as irate if we enforced a "stop and remain stopped for a pedestrian in the crosswalk" ordinance. They don't want to stop for pedestrians, period.

Awakened

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:38 p.m.

I began frequenting downtown less when they raised the parking rates. I decided that it would be even less convenient to frequent A2 in the winter because of the idling ordinance which prohibits using your remote start to warm the car. (And its concerned ting food delivery vehicles might not keep cool during delivery in the summer due to that ordinance.) Now..... Well.... Since I don't live in walking distance to town. It just seems like there is nothing there that I can't get more convienently esewhere. Sad.

Dave Sullivan

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:16 p.m.

We should just hire crossing guards for all crosswalks. They can walk out with a little red sign and stop traffic for us. The unemployment number would be so low. We could get them trained to use a gun and they could fight crime and be like minipolice. When pigs fly...

Urban Sombrero

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:12 p.m.

I had a cop in my chair at work today. I asked him what he thought about this ordinance. His response: "What I personally think? I think I probably accidentally violated it about 3 times on my way in today." And, this is a cop, people. Someone who's supposed to enforce this insanity. If even the cops are unclear on it, what chance do the rest of us have? It's a bad law. Pure and simple. I have no problem stopping for pedestrians (they're out in the elements, I'm in a temperature-controlled vehicle), but the law itself just plain needs to be written better. It's unclear, as it is.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 5:25 p.m.

That is interesting. I have had great success getting drivers to stop by pointing across the street. Of course, that is in the day time. I expect that if you are pointing with a flashlight at night, the drivers probably didn't see you well enough to know what you wanted. This ordinance wont make you more visible to them. Making pedestrians go through some extra hoops to address the valid concerns motorists have about determining the intentions of pedestrians is the kind of thing that might make this ordinance work. Let's face it, it wont work unless drivers comply voluntarily. The AAPD doesn't have the resources to enforce this enough to bring about any great change in driver's behavior and even if they did, if the driver either doesn't see you or doesn't determine your intent to cross the road, they will not stop.

Grimey

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 3:22 p.m.

So... Police officers aren't clear on this law but they'll still write $100 tickets for those they think violated it? Tuh!

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 7:09 p.m.

Woman in Ypsi - "I don't know why KJMClark is so resistant to any improvements. I mean why not require pedestrians to signal their intentions? Why not make the law apply to marked crosswalks with signs?" Because I don't think that would be an improvement. As I pointed out in another comment of yours, I've tried pointing across the intersection, with a flashing light in my hand pointed at oncoming motorists, and they ignored it. From what I've seen, the only thing that will get motorists to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks is to enforce the ordinance, and make it clear that a pedestrian doesn't have to stop and wait forever for motorists to yield. Making the pedestrian jump through extra hoops to have motorists obey the law doesn't strike me as useful.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 6:27 p.m.

FWIW, I also think this law was badly worded and I also don't mind stopping for pedestrians although to be fair, as a pedestrian, I prefer yielding to cars simply because that is the safest option. As a driver of an automobile, however, I don't have any problem yielding to pedestrians. But this law isn't clear and could be improved in many ways that would make things better for pedestrians. I don't know why KJMClark is so resistant to any improvements. I mean why not require pedestrians to signal their intentions? Why not make the law apply to marked crosswalks with signs?

Urban Sombrero

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 2:05 a.m.

You've been arguing this all day. I mean it's a bad law in that it was poorly written. You and I will obviously disagree. You don't think the wording is vague, I do. I do not have a problem stopping. However, I think that the wording of this law is unclear. Define "approaching". Again, you've been arguing this all day and you obviously don't see it the same way I do. Let's agree to disagree.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:15 a.m.

Fair enough, please report it as abuse if you think it was a personal attack. I'm sorry for offending you, but you're saying two contradictory things "I have no problem stopping" but "it's a bad law". Let me try again. So the police are people too, and have been under the SE Michigan "roads are for cars" prejudice for the past umpty years too. Doesn't mean it was right. So what *exactly* do you think is unclear? I don't see another post from you, so I have no idea what you are referring to. Look at the state law I posted above for "Yield" signs. Do you think that law is also unclear? Here's the Michigan State Police recommended ordinance, all ready adopted in most Michigan Cities and villages (Michigan UTC rule 710): "(1) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right -of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger, but a pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield." Is that also a bad law that's unclear?

Urban Sombrero

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:22 p.m.

That's a really argumentative response. How do you know what I want? Like I said, I have NO problems stopping for people. See my post below---I actually pointed out a place where people DON'T stop. A place where I made it a point to stop. How dare you assume anything about me!

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:18 p.m.

Um, the police are people too, and have been under the SE Michigan "roads are for cars" prejudice for the past umpty years too. Doesn't mean it was right. Be honest. Like most other people here, you would prefer the good old days when pedestrians waited until there was no traffic, and crosswalks meant that was the only place pedestrians were 'allowed' to cross.

john ellis

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:01 p.m.

The motorist in the silver Camry did not violate the ordinance. The city was incorrect by enforcing a law at an intersection where its own signage contradicts the ordinance. Between the sign and the flashing yellow light (a signal to slow down and prepare to stop, not a signal to stop), the city rendered that intersection (and all others like it) exempt from its new ordinance.

rob

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:39 p.m.

I can't wait to see the fun when the crosswalks are buried under the snow.

flyingsquirrel

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:30 p.m.

Driving laws really need to be written with the underlying assumption that drivers are human beings who will make mistakes and therefore try to minimize the results of those mistakes. It's often a reason cited for putting circles in instead of 4-way intersections--cars are generally traveling more slowly through a circle and therefore, when there is a collision, it is usually not a serious one. At some point, a good driver who does mean to be polite to pedestrians will simply make an unfortunate mistake, and with this law the consequences are too great. The pedestrian won't even have a chance. There are three or four crosswalks on Plymouth Road, which I drive every morning. With heavy traffic, it is often hard to even see if anyone is approaching the crosswalk or standing on the island. And yesterday, a car in the right lane stopped, the pedestrian started walking, and the car in the left lane did not stop and almost hit the man. It is dangerous, and as a pedestrian I won't be stepping into the crosswalk until it seems safe--and certainly not if one car is stopped but I don't know if the others will.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 6:21 p.m.

I've seen that same scenario a couple of times.

Ashok Gopalakrishnan

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:27 p.m.

Mayor: We ought to do something about the unsafe conditions for pedestrians in Anne's Harbor. I was almost run over by a Prius as I entered the crosswalk at Hackard and Steadman; and I had a walk sign too. CM1: Let's pass a new ordinance that requires motorists to yield right-of-way to pedestrians who may just be approaching a crosswalk, and not only that, let us add crosswalks bang in the middle of busy streets. Who do these Prius drivers – sorry, motorists – think they are? CM2: Oh, I don't think we need to do that. State law already says that pedestrians have right-of-way at crosswalks at controlled intersections. Let us start by having AHPD officers aggressively enforce state law. And while they are ticketing motorists, let them also ticket jaywalkers – you know, the ones who don't think it is important to cross quickly, or the ones who just step off the curb and on to the street, without looking. We will soon be as pedestrian-friendly as can be. Crosswalks across busy roads are definitely useful; it can be a very long walk between intersections. Makes sense to have these, but we have to make it safe for both pedestrians and motorists. These HAWK lights that other cities are using - they could work for us. Mayor: I like your suggestion CM2. I will ask AHPD to start enforcing state law immediately. I also like the idea of the crosswalks, and they do have to be made safe. But these HAWK lights - they can cost upward of $45,000 to install. Where do we get the money from? Council Member 2: Ms. Mayor, we have $29 million dollars sitting in our street fund, collected via a special millage from our citizens. We also have $539,000 sitting in our Percent for Arts fund – money that came directly from the street millage. Maybe we could use some of that to pay for the HAWK lights. Mayor: Yes, of course. I am quite sure our citizens will be thankful. I was beginning to sense a wee bit of dissatisfaction from them these past few months. Let's get on with it.

Forever27

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:38 p.m.

that was way too logical and thoughtful to be part of the American political system. Where's the counsimember who tries to insert language into the law that will garner profits for some business they have a vested interest in? What about the thousands of dollars that would be spent on "consultants" to figure out where to put the crosswalks? Like I said, this was way to organized and well-thought to be real. -but it really is as simple as you made it in your comment. Our leaders just have to have the right priorities to make it a reality

Woman in Ypsilanti

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:17 p.m.

I really don't like this ordinance as it is written even though I do agree with the concept. The main problems are that out of town people wont know about it and that it is usually impossible to know if the pedestrian in question intends to cross the street. Oh and that on busy and wide streets like Washtenaw, it is dangerous to expect drivers to monitor the sidewalks on the far side of the street. They need to pay attention to their own side of the street! The thing that gets me mad about this is that instead of attempting to address concerns like this, people are just dismissing them as coming from a driver who hates pedestrians! But just in case the city council wants to be reasonable, here are some suggestions on how they can make this ordinance more workable for everyone. 1. Rewrite the ordinance so that it only applies to marked crosswalks and also create traffic islands for any marked cross walks that go over more than 3 lanes of traffic. 2. Put signs up at the marked cross walks that explain the ordinance. At the very least, take down the misleading signs that warn drivers to stop for pedestrians in the cross walk. That is the law but the sign kind of implies that drivers don't have to stop for people merely approaching the crosswalk 3. Write the ordinance so that pedestrians who wish to cross are required to signal drivers, perhaps by pointing to the other side of the street. I can't see what possible objection anyone would have to this. Make it clear to drivers that the pedestrian wants to cross the street! I mean, I keep stopping for people I think might be wanting to cross the street but then they wave me on. That is making me change how I judge who wants to cross the street (like now I assume if someone is texting at an intersection, they are just standing there or if there is a bus stop there, they are just standing there)

Septgirl

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:15 p.m.

As I drove down Fuller Road this morning there were two of these stops. I patiently slowed down and stopped at each one as people crossed the street. At the first stop the blue/silver Honda slammed on his breaks, almost hitting me. The second stop, I slowed again, as someone was in the cross walk, this time the same car hit his horn and passed me. He didn't read last night's AnnArbor.com. He also didn't get a ticket, but I was subjected to his anger. I wonder how many others have experienced this today.

jeanarrett

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:11 p.m.

I would be happy to see the City Police just sit at several of the corners (Fourth and Liberty comes to mind especially) for a few hours (unmarked, of course), and watch how many people run the red lights. Don't step off the curb until you're sure. I work downtown at Liberty and Fifth and I see this on a daily basis. City buses are notorious for this behavior also. And, if that empty police car that is parked on Fourth near the parking garage at rush hour is supposed to be a deterrent, everyone figured out you're empty several weeks ago and speed right on by.

golfer

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:04 p.m.

gee with the idle law and this we should be able to buy that art the city wants to put up. this is a right idea but watch the cars with cell phones ram the car infront. welcome to ann arbor home of the strange.

Megarz

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:02 p.m.

I think this is just common sense made into a law. I have no problem with it whatsoever, both as a pedestrian and as a driver in this city.

Rici

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 9:02 p.m.

Finally! A voice of reason. Thank you for standing up!

AAbob43

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8 p.m.

It is prohibitively difficult to determine what is and is not a "crosswalk" subject to this rule. A couple crosswalks are clearly marked, of which I'm aware (Huron at Chapin, Washington and 7th.) But others are pretty ambiguous. In Boulder, CO, there is a similar ordinance. Pedestrians indicate their presence by activating unmistakeable flashing lights, which startle the hell out of a driver. Installing same in AA would, of course, provide another way to spend money. How DID I ever get to be 60 years old without ever being hit by a car as a pedestrian? I guess I'm some insane combination of rocket-scientist and athlete. Or, maybe this is all a bunch of needless crap. BTW, last weekend, a driver got pissed at me because I was in a maybe-crosswalk on my bike and was yielding to her, but she wanted to yield to me, but I had a yield sign and she didn't (at the roundabout at Maple and M-14.) More confusion--are bikes pedestrians? I think the rule is "no." We're gonna need to hire crosswalk referees to handle the confusion! Is there some way that AA residents can tell Council to rescind this ordinance?

rob

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:37 p.m.

@Megarz I usually remind them with my horn.

Stephen Landes

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:34 p.m.

Congratulations to you for following the vehicle regulations and yielding. I have to say that I get very upset with pedestrians or bike riders who try to "yield" to me when they have the right of way. I just take my hands off the wheel and refuse to move. If there is any kind of misunderstanding - I follow their hand signals but they decide I'm not going to - I know I will be the one at fault no matter how much the pedestrian or bike rider tries to wave me through.

Megarz

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:07 p.m.

No! Bicyclists are NOT pedestrians and need to be reminded of that every chance we get :) <a href="http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/systems_planning/Transportation/Pages/Bike.aspx" rel='nofollow'>http://www.a2gov.org/government/publicservices/systems_planning/Transportation/Pages/Bike.aspx</a>

xfdragon

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:55 p.m.

What is the point of having one of those crosswalks about a half a block from the corner of Liberty and Stadium where they could cross with the light, and with the pedestrian signal, isn't that what it is there for? There is a new crosswalk on both sides of Liberty on Stadium just so the pedestrian doesn't have to walk to the corner. That doesn't make any sense at all. Did they just throw a dart on a map and say lets put one here and here....in the middle of nowhere. Sure wish I could vote for those fools on the city counsel, they need to be kicked out of there. I will not drive those streets and risk being ticketed or involved in an accident and get rearended...With cars coming in all directions trying to cross Stadium and pull out of shops and other streets a driver must watch all directions just for cars...now we need to watch the sidewalk for pedestrians...Unbelievable.

Go Blue

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:52 p.m.

Idiotic, pure and simple. The 8 ticket holders need to band together and hire an attorney to get this law overturned. Of course, that will waste yet more taxpayer funds but hey, the city powers that be used their positions as a platform to railroad their own preferences into law. Was a traffic study performed? Was there anyone that indicated this law, in contradiction to the state law, is safe for pedestrians and drivers? Or was this simply "this is what we want to have" and it was implemented without much thinking, research or study? It is beyond time for our "government" such as it is, to get down to the serious aspects of running the city and get over pushing through nonsensical whims. Quite frankly, I do belive they haven't a clue.

aabikes

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:51 p.m.

As a pretty strong defender of all pedestrian and cyclist rights and safety, I do have to admit this is a pretty poorly implemented ordinance. I've already had a terrible experience with it while I was out for a run. I was crossing over Plymouth road, towards the pedestrian island. All of a sudden, I hear brakes squealing and there are several cars stopped on the other side of the island within a foot of each other. All because a kind woman, concerned with abiding by the ordinance needed to stop for me. I could have waited 30 seconds Ann Arbor. I feel a lot of danger here...On behalf of pedestrians, I'd rather have better lighting and reflective ground stripes at crosswalks than this dangerous obligation for drivers. It is more important that drivers be AWARE pedestrians are in the area, then lawfully forced to stop for them.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:10 p.m.

Hi djacks! aabikes - that was what was supposed to happen. You were a pedestrian in the crosswalk and they yielded to you. What the heck was so terrible about that? If you could have waited 30 seconds, you should have done it on the sidewalk before you headed across the street.

djacks24

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:44 p.m.

Great post aabikes! I want to see KJMClark reply to this statement since he is the one that obviously is sounding off on every post with his tired old argument of 'why is this any different than yielding for traffic.'

andys

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:58 p.m.

Well said aabikes. Thanks for explaining so clearly, and with anecdotal support, the basic problem with this ordinance. Ann Arbor City council created a dangerous situation here, and should be held directly accountable for property damage, injury, and God forbid loss of life.

conairaa

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:51 p.m.

I don't understand why the State ordinance was not enough. Maybe the same effort should have been put into enforcing it before the City Council enacted another.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 11:15 p.m.

As you're a master of pointless comments, I suppose that's some kind of compliment. So, thanks! Have anything relevant to say? Why don't you be helpful and go look for the state ordinance on mid-block crosswalks? At least I bothered spend more than a femtosecond looking something up.

EyeHeartA2

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:56 a.m.

You reply to Chelsea Bob was the most vague and unhelpful one I had ever seen...until I saw this one.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:07 p.m.

Because there isn't a "State ordinance". See my reply to ChelseaBob two comments ago.

sarcasMike

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:49 p.m.

While I agree with the intent of the law, how would a car ever get though an intersection on South U? Are pedestrians subject to the 4- way stop? In my experience the only way through is to shoot a gap, if you had to wait until no one was approaching the intersection, you'd never get through...

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:01 a.m.

They should probably put in lights at those intersections. You're right, pedestrians shouldn't have to wait forever, but motorists shouldn't either. But there aren't that many times of day when you can't get through, though it sometimes takes a while.

ChelseaBob

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.

This will not stand up in court. The city cannot have different traffic laws from the state, unless they clearly mark every intersection from every direction and vantage point, which will cost millions. Instead, they will write tickets for a vague law (when is someone approaching? 5 ft away? 20 ft away? What if they are moving slowly or in an indeterminate fashion?), and then there will be a lawsuit, which the city will waste more money defending, then they'll lose and pay damages for writing a stupid law. I hope the judge jails the council for criminal stupidity. Great job city council.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:07 p.m.

ChelseaBob - find the state law. Go ahead. Here, I'll help. You want to go to <a href="http://www.michiganlegislature.org," rel='nofollow'>www.michiganlegislature.org,</a> go to the lower right searchbox, to search by keyword, and look for crosswalk. But "cross-walk" will give you better results. Then, when you can't find it that way, go back to that first page and search for pedestrian. When you don't find it that way, come back. If you *do* think you've found it, read it again, more carefully, because you've probably found the law regarding signal-controlled intersections, which is not the same thing.

leezee

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:33 p.m.

Question: Perhaps I am wrong, but wasn't there supposed to be a period (I thought it was August and September) when warnings would be issued? And what happened to the education program that was supposed to take place before the ordinance went into play? Also, thank you annarbor.com for listing the particulars of the ordinance.

Goober

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:42 p.m.

They need the money for another art project.

EyeHeartA2

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.

Money trumped sticking to their word.

xmo

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:33 p.m.

This is not being Very "GREEN" by making cars stop and emit more CO2 into the air. It would be "GREENER" to have the person stop and emit a lot less CO2. That's if you believe this Climate Change stuff!

djacks24

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:15 p.m.

If they can't get you for not stopping, they'll eventually get you for sitting and idling. Win-win for the city! More money for artsy fartsy stuff!

EyeHeartA2

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:30 p.m.

@Jon; I think I have a better idea. Protest! This is what I have learned from living here. Make a stink. I'm thinking if we don't like the law, we walk back and forth across the steet and cause gridlock downtown during rush hour. Do that unit the law is changed. Just get about 10 people and walk round and round at an intersection. Then move on to the next one.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 11:19 p.m.

Really? Have you actually looked that up? Why don't you try it and see where it says you have to be in a vehicle to be cited for that. Let's just say you don't know what you're talking about. As usual.

EyeHeartA2

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:18 a.m.

Impeding traffic is a vehicle ticket. I wouldn't be in or on a vehicle.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:06 a.m.

That could get you a ticket for impeding traffic. It's one thing to block other traffic because it just happens, but another to do it intentionally. But feel free to try it. WBWC had bike rides downtown on Fridays for a long time. They said it wasn't intended to slow traffic, but I never got around to doing it. I figured just biking to work and meetings was showing enough presence.

Goober

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:41 p.m.

I am sure that most UofM students would love to be mobilized and participate in this protest.

rob

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:19 p.m.

Best comment on here yet.

Sciomanone1

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:30 p.m.

This is wonderful, after being a Ann Arbor resident for around 35 years I have seen so many drivers almost hit people on bikes, walking and so many that are running on the streets and sidewalks and cross walks. When I have been down town on Liberty it is so sad to see the police sit in their police car and drink coffee and eat and they just to not see the fast drivers on the down town streets and also on Plymouth Road. It is wonderful, if they are now going to be watching and I do hope they watch on Plymouth road, I have seen the Arabic females almost hit and people get close to them and honk their horn when they get close to them and they almost fall, on Friday when they are trying to cross. Thanks again for the Ann Arbor Police doing a wonderful Job.

ChelseaBob

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:39 p.m.

Scio- There are speed limit laws and laws about pedestrians in crosswalks. If we can;t enforce those laws, why bother passing another one?

unclemercy

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:25 p.m.

ive changed my morning commute over this.

SB

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 10:33 a.m.

Good!

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:24 p.m.

For everyone who thinks "approaching" is too vague, here's the state law for "Yield" signs: MCL 257.649(4) "The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign, in obedience to the sign, shall slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions and shall yield the right of way to a vehicle in the intersection or ***approaching*** on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the driver would be moving across or within the intersection." [emphasis mine] Look at that. You've been required to yield since at least 1979 for "approaching" vehicles when you come up to a yield sign. Maybe you should take that vague language to the Supreme Court?

Woman in Ypsilanti

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 5:35 p.m.

Of course, I have big boobs so the drivers are already paying attention to me. LOL

Woman in Ypsilanti

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 5:30 p.m.

We must be pedestrians in different parts of town because when I point to cross the street, the cars stop for me. :) Maybe marked crosswalks with signs that tell drivers that they have to stop for someone pointing across the road would be helpful.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 6:46 p.m.

Marilyn - "What Every Driver Must Know" says (p79): "When approaching an intersection with a yield sign, slow down before reaching the intersection, then yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection and to cross traffic. Stop if necessary." That's what I do, except I take the extra step specified in the law and yield to *approaching* traffic. What do you do? Woman In Ypsi - I've found that sticking my hand out, pointing across the intersection, with a flashing light in my hand, pointed toward the motorist, usually has no effect whatsoever. If people around here did stop for pedestrians pointing across the intersection, there wouldn't have been a need for the "approaching" language. So blame our fellow motorists for the need of the extra wording.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 6:12 p.m.

It really is different. There aren't as many possible things a car can be doing at a yield sign. Also there is an actual sign to alert drivers. A better ordinance would be one where it only applied to marked crosswalks (you know marked with a sign) and one where pedestrians were required to signal their intention. FWIW, as a pedestrian, even before this law, I've found that pointing to the other side of the street gets drivers to stop even when they weren't legally required to stop.

Marilyn Wilkie

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 2:02 a.m.

KM whatever, so you stop at every yield sign huh? I certainly hope I'm never around you at a yield sign.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:22 a.m.

Long time - OK, why's it different? I go through a yield-controlled intersection just about every day. When I have to yield, I have no idea what the other motorist or cyclist is going to do. Sometimes they go through, sometimes they turn right onto my street, sometimes they turn around, sometimes they just stop. Doesn't really matter what they do, I stop until it's safe for me to go. Seems like the same thing happens at the crosswalks I see. Most of them are pretty clear that they're planning to cross the street. Some are waiting for a bus, some are just standing around and don't realize they stepped toward the crosswalk. It's about the same. Stephen - and you've never seen a clueless motorist who's lost or something and clearly can't decide what they should do next? Waterdipper - the "entrance square" is *not* part of the crosswalk. The crosswalk is that part of the "roadway" that pedestrians use to cross. Have you seen the video that convinced council to include "approaching"? A mom and her son are standing on the "entrance square", looking toward the crosswalk, looking toward traffic coming their way, looking toward the crosswalk, looking at traffic, etc, etc, as motorist after motorist ignores them and zooms by. The point is that the previous version is a catch-22. Unless you step into the crosswalk, the motorists ignore you (mostly, they ignore you anyway). But you have to endanger yourself to actually step in the crosswalk. So the motorists just zoomed by while the pedestrians stood there. So approaching means the same thing it does for the yield sign law.

Waterdipper

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:42 p.m.

Well, duh....if a pedestrian "approaches" a crosswalk "so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard (in this case, to themselves if they step in front of a moving vehicle) during the time the driver would be moving across or within the" crosswalk, the pedestrian would likely be WITHIN the crosswalk (which includes the entrance square on the edge of the road). If they're just walking towards and getting near the crosswalk, there is no hazard to them at that time. So again...what does "approaching" mean????

Long Time No See

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:47 p.m.

KJMClark, I can't believe you are seriously making this argument. It is significantly more difficult to divine the intentions of a pedestrian than those of a driver, in motion, confined to a road, with much more limited mobility options than a pedestrian. It is *absolutely* not the same thing, and you're being extremely disingenuous when you claim that it is.

Stephen Landes

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:27 p.m.

I understand approaching vehicles, but I do not understand "approaching pedestrians" because they do many things that may or may not indicate an intention to cross: dawdling while talking on a cell phone or totally oblivious to the world while listening to an iPod makes one wonder just what the intend to do and whether or not they will actually begin to cross the road. I slow down for these folks and am prepared to stop, but I will not just stop and wait for them to wake up, see their surroundings, and take action that can reasonably be considered "approaching a crosswalk". This class of pedestrian is almost as dangerous to themselves and others as most of the cyclists I encounter in town.

Suitsme

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:19 p.m.

I find that several tiimes I have stopped at my own peril with cars chomping at the bit behind me only to have the pedistrian stop their approach to answer their cell phones or some other such thing. Also, I have stopped and when people step into the street cars coming from the opposite direction almost hit them and I feel like my stopping enticed them to enter the intersection. I have begged traffic control to do something about cars speeding at 50 mph past my house at rush hour. Now I know where the patrol cars are.

Chrissa

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:18 p.m.

My only issue with this, are the rude walkers. I have a friend that, when walking with him, will walk right out in front of cars on a don't walk light. It makes me want to throttle him every time he does it, so much so, that I've stopped walking with him altogether "We have the right of way" is the usual response. It is one of the rudest things I have ever heard. I've also seen motorists damn near run down pedestrians who are crossing on a "Walk" light or crossing in the middle of them crossing, which is also crazy rude, not to mention dangerous. Whether in a car, or on my feet, I wait my turn and unless there's a sign telling me to walk, I treat everything like a 4 Way. I go, you go, I go, you go...which can be rather hard on S.State and S.U by the Union, but I make eye contact with the students, hand gestures, and s'long as one of them doesn't run willy nilly in front of me, this law doesn't cause me to have to do anything other than what I've always been doing. Is it really so hard for people to just be considerate, in general? I know I'm sounding pretty facetious here, but c'mon.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:18 p.m.

They should come up to the crosswalk at Pontiac Trail near Arrowwood. I had two people blow by while I was *in* the crosswalk this morning walking my son to his bus. Plenty of time to stop, and I was in the crosswalk in the other lane as they didn't even slow down.

Rici

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 8:55 p.m.

Actually, if he was already *in* the crosswalk, those drivers are in violation of *state* law.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 11:23 p.m.

There are townships, but none of them are near the two unsignalized crosswalks. But don't let the facts get in the way of your diatribe.

EyeHeartA2

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:49 a.m.

In the city of AA or AA township. There are township islands out there, correct? So how does this cluster of a law get applied there? If you are crossing East to West, a ticket is issued, but West to East, no ticket? Just another example of what an ill conceived pile of garbage the amateur hour we are stuck with (until November) came up with.

bg

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:02 p.m.

a2roots - you should try reading KJMClark's comment prior to responding. Not stopping for someone *in* the crosswalk (as stated in the comment) is a flagrant disregard for the law.

Jake

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:08 p.m.

I think every one of the ticketed drivers should join together, and file a class action suit against the city to fight this vaguely written, poor excuse of an ordinance. I know that I intend to make it a point to avoid going into the city unless I absolutely need to for some reason. By and large there is nothing I can't get elsewhere, and not take the risk of a fine and points on my licensee , or having my vehicle rear ended and have the hassle and expense that goes along with that. Not to mention having my insurance jacked up. If I were a merchant in the city limits I would be upset over this. And to all the residents within the city limits, for heavens sake VOTE these clowns out!

EyeHeartA2

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:03 p.m.

How about when somebody used to "having their way" with cars in AA ventures on to the mean streets of Pittfield township and gets run over?

capersdaddy

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:03 p.m.

i regularly use the crosswalk that connects the Devonshire cut-through to Gallup Park. This crosswalk is across Geddes Avenue, right as it curves at the base of a hill. As a runner/pedestrian, i wait for traffic to clear before crossing. I really can't imagine cars stopping on this blind curve for pedestrians, and as one, i don't expect it. Very, very dangerous.

Ellen

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:15 p.m.

That used to be my route to work, and I always tried to slow down in case there was someone trying to cross. And it seemed like almost every time that I did this, I came very close to being rear-ended, and always got the "You're number 1" finger salute from the car behind me!

KeepingItReal

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7 p.m.

There is a tragedy waiting to happen on Plymouth Road near the Georgetown subdivision. That Cross Walk is terrible. Most drivers do not recognize that they must stop or the instructions posted there are so obscure that drivers do not recognize their obligation in time to stop. During early morning traffic, drivers cannot see the pedestrians as they try to cross Plymouth and during late afternoon rush hour traffic, the traffic pattern is too heavy for drivers to stop even though they are required by law to do so. I have witnessed several near accidents when a conscientious driver stopped and it almost caused a pile up accident. Personally, I think that cross walk need to be removed if the city is not going to do a better job of making sure that motorists are aware of their obligation under the current municipal ordinance and citizens are safe when trying to cross at that location.

swcornell

Mon, Sep 26, 2011 : 6:45 a.m.

I'm starting to wonder if that intersection would not be better served by a pedestrian bridge?

leaguebus

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:13 p.m.

The Hawk signals have their drawbacks too. I use the one on Huron every day and every other time I use it some space cadet driver runs the light. A pedestrian must be very careful at these intersections. This morning a car stopped for the light and someone behind them honked at them for stopping. The walk signal was on for me when this happened.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:46 p.m.

I know that crosswalk! I think it is a good candidate for one of those HAWK signals.

Cash

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:58 p.m.

I'm glad that AnnArbor.com informed the public on this one. I will NEVER drive in Ann Arbor now. My vehicle has been rear ended by another one and I can tell you it's horrifying. I won't ask for that to happen again. There are other places to shop and eat out.

Tom Teague

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 7:02 p.m.

Okay. I disagree. I don't have much else to say that I haven't said here or on a post I wrote that appears on the next comments page. I am now going to the aa.com posters' lounge to join Cash and ERMG for a martini. If I have two, I promise to call a cab.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 6:56 p.m.

Tom, I completely agree with your right, and responsibility, to contact your councilmember, as I have mine in the past and will again. To answer Murrow's last question: "I really don't understand your problem with my decision not to enter the environs of A2 unless absolutely necessary. One less car ought make it that much safer for pedestrians." I don't care what Murrow does, and agree that it might make it safer for everyone else if there's one less car on Ann Arbor's streets. What I care about is the way people think about the public roadways and everyone's rights to safely use them, and I personally have respected Murrow's opinions in the past. I don't like having to change my opinion about someone I respect. It makes the world seem - what - a little less reasonable. I used to think Pete Peterson was really interested in the future of the country, and not just dismantling Social Security. It was a bit painful to have to conclude otherwise. Murrow has always struck me as interested in reasonable treatment for everyone. But on the topic of the most vulnerable road users, I no longer think that's his perspective. Whatever.

Tom Teague

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 6:39 p.m.

I won't speak for ERMG or Cash, but I think he has left the field to others. And, my reading of what both of them said was not that they intended to disobey the law, but that they didn't want to put themselves in a situation where they had to obey it -- i.e., they'd stay away from Ann Arbor. That's not unreasonable. I don't have that option because I live here and I intend to call my CM tomorrow and politely express my views about this ordinance. Personally, the what ifs being thrown around by both sides are making my head hurt. The concision of ERMG's and Cash's arguments -- that the new ordinance requires drivers to divine what a person on the sidewalk intends to do -- is refreshing. I agree with them: It's vague and practically unenforceable. I would argue that the law needs to be fixed, which is a perfectly acceptable remedy that fits the model of government we live under.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 6:32 p.m.

Not that I expect Murrow to reply again, but if you are still reading this, please strike my flip comment about a squirrel and let me make a real argument along those lines. 1) Would you think it's reasonable to yield for an approaching car traveling at 15mph? 2) How about a motorcyclist traveling at 15mph? 3) What about a bicyclist traveling at 15mph? 4) A bicyclist traveling at 10mph? This is not "reductio ad absurdum", these are all legitimate road users, and you are legally obligated to yield to them when you're facing a yield sign. At what point is another human being become large enough and moving fast enough to be worth yielding to as they approach? And the bicyclist has lots of options for where to go, again for the situation I referred to earlier, they could stop, do a U-turn, turn right, go through, switch to the sidewalk, or slow to a crawl. If it was a four-sided intersection, they could also turn left. I've also seen all of those.

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 5:56 p.m.

Of course, Tom. But the question is whether I think the ordinance needs correcting, or my opinion of other people needs correcting. At this point, I'm thinking my opinion of Murrow needs correcting. Murrow. Your argument absolutely is a might makes right argument. I deal with a yield-controlled intersection all the time, and no, it is never obvious what the motorist is going to do. I've seen them do every variation from go through to just stop and sit there before the intersection. The only obvious thing is that I have a yield sign, and have to sit there waiting to see what they do, because I'm not willing to put myself above the law and I try to avoid making dangerous assumptions. On darting out, you're arguing against the Secretary of State's office, not me. Take up your argument with them. The point here is marked crosswalks. And does your lack of rebuttal mean you acknowledge your earlier point, that you are "also being asked to be hyper aware of things that are not happening in the roadway, thereby distracting me from where my attention ought be focused", was wrong, and that your assumption about what you were supposed to be paying attention to was not based on things every Michigan driver is supposed to know? Maybe you should reconsider your other driving assumptions, since you were so wrong about something so basic?

Tom Teague

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 4:12 p.m.

KJMC - I commend you for your staunch support of pedestrian rights; and I agree with everyone who says that it is sometimes dangerous to walk in Ann Arbor. But if people who you feel are "responsible," "sane" and "voices of reason" are opposed to this ordinance, shouldn't you take another look at it yourself? This law doesn't help the cause of pedestrian safety. It hurts it.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 11:15 a.m.

One last time, then I surrender the field: 1) It is patently ridiculous to compare a large vehicle moving 30+ mph with only one option for where it goes as it approaches the intersection (it will enter the intersection, perhaps turning once there), with a slow-moving pedestrian APPROACHING a crosswalk. 2) The MVC you cite what one is to do if there is a pedestrian IN a crosswalk. Now one has to stop as a pedestrian APPROACHES that crosswalk with the INTENT of using it. INTENT = I have to read their mind. 3) It's not a "might makes right" argument. It is a "there's nothing else for the car to do as it approaches the intersection but enter the intersection" argument. And, no, we're not talking about squirrels. Welcome to the reductio ad absurdum argument. 4) There are laws on the books about what drivers are to do with pedestrians IN a crosswalk. I suggest that those be RIGOROUSLY enforced. But they aren't--and these won't be either. Once in a while there will be a crackdown, which will serve no one. 5) YOU raised the darting issue by quoting WEDMK and, in doing so, trying to compare it with this silly ordinance, but now you dismiss it because it works against your logic. Fine. So let's try for a little intellectual consistency here, shall we? I really don't understand your problem with my decision not to enter the environs of A2 unless absolutely necessary. One less car ought make it that much safer for pedestrians. GN&GL

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 10:42 a.m.

Murrow - *You're* willing to use a moving target defense instead of admitting you were wrong? Read the "What Every Driver Must Know" quote again. The Secretary of State says you should always have been looking for pedestrians "entering a street" from a long list of possibilities. If I'm being disingenuous by comparing the wording for yield signs to the wording in the ordinance, then you're using a "might makes right" argument in saying that you're OK with watching for large, fast moving approaching things, but not human-sized slower moving objects. We're not talking about squirrels here - we're talking about your fellow human beings. And we're also not talking about darting from between parked cars - we're talking about marked crosswalks. One more try. Here's the State Police recommended ordinance: (Michigan UTC rule 710): "(1) When traffic-control signals are not in place or are not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right -of-way, slowing down or stopping if need be to so yield, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is on the half of the roadway on which the vehicle is traveling or when the pedestrian is approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be in danger, but a pedestrian shall not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into a path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield." Is that also vaguely worded? Because if it is, you're going to have pretty much stop driving in Michigan. Most Michigan cities have adopted that.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:24 a.m.

Yes, I am supposed to be doing all of those things. And now, in A2, I have to be watching people approaching the crossing sidewalks to try to divine whether or not they intend to enter the street. And, BTW, let me know the next time a child darts out from between cars and gets hit by an automobile, and the driver gets charged (assuming they were not speeding, reaching for their cell phone, or doing something else that might have contributed to the accident). GN&GL

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:21 a.m.

"And the fact that the state law for yield signs also requires you to "read someone's mind and to respond accordingly" means nothing?" As someone below wrote, this is a disingenuous comparison--from the size of the vehicle making it easier to see, to its having lights at night, to the limited possibilities for a car as it approaches an intersection at, say 30 mph (what else is that car going to do but go straight through the intersection). None of the above is true of a pedestrian. Good Night and Good Luck

KJMClark

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:30 a.m.

Murrow - "And, by the way, I'm also being asked to be hyper aware of things that are not happening in the roadway, thereby distracting me from where my attention ought be focused." Michigan "What Every Driver Must Know", p102: "Watch for vehicles coming from alleys or parking places when driving in a business district." and p103: "As a driver, watch out and always yield the right-of-way to people walking, jogging, biking, crossing a street in the middle of a block, or darting from between parked vehicles. Watch for them when entering a street from a driveway or alley, at stop signs, traffic signals, roundabouts, crosswalks, and intersections." I.e., you're already supposed to be watching for things on the sides of the road. You both strike me as responsible, sane people. But now you both seem to be seriously over-reacting, to an ordinance intended to protect vulnerable people, and which is pretty much the ordinance in place in the rest of the state and the rest of the country. What am I missing?

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:02 p.m.

And the fact that the state law for yield signs also requires you to "read someone's mind and to respond accordingly" means nothing? How do you rationalize the same situation, one with an automobile, another with a person on foot, and come up with completely different conclusions? Except to say that might makes right?

Awakened

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:36 p.m.

I began frequenting downtown less when they raised the parking rates. I decided that it would be even less convenient to frequent A2 in the winter because of the idling ordinance which prohibits using your remote start to warm the car. And I'm concerned that food delivery vehicles can't be kept cool during delivery in the summer due to that ordinance. Now..... Well.... Since I don't live in walking distance to town. It just seems like they don't want my business. Now there is nothing there that I can't get more easily elsewhere.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:32 p.m.

KJMC wrote: " . . . but you're both going to avoid downtown because you might have to stop for pedestrians trying to cross the street?" But that's not what the law requires, is it? It requires us to determine the intent of pedestrians as they approach a crosswalk. If they're in the crosswalk, I know what they're doing, and I will stop, and anyone who does not ought be ticketed. But now I am being asked to read someone's mind and to respond accordingly. And, by the way, I'm also being asked to be hyper aware of things that are not happening in the roadway, thereby distracting me from where my attention ought be focused. Nope. Agree with Cash. This is an incredibly silly if not dangerous law (can't wait to have the rear-end crashes on 7th Street as someone stops short because they saw someone APPROACHING a crosswalk). Good Night and Good Luck

Woman in Ypsilanti

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:47 p.m.

Don't worry. The Ann Arbor police department will soon tire of this enforcement and then they'll go back to not enforcing this kind of ordinance at all.

djacks24

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:06 p.m.

"So it's better to endanger pedestrians?" No, I believe he is saying its better to not endanger pedestrians or himself and avoid it altogether

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:28 p.m.

That's funny, you and Murrow are usually voices of reason, but you're both going to avoid downtown because you might have to stop for pedestrians trying to cross the street? And in the downtown, where speed limits are low? So it's better to endanger pedestrians?

Marilyn Wilkie

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:52 p.m.

response: the law does not explain the definition of "approaching", and the signs do not reflect the wording of the law. That is a response that I would like to see.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:50 p.m.

I really think pedestrians should be required to signal their intentions. I keep stopping for people who then wave me on.

Long Time No See

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:44 p.m.

KJMClark, I can't believe you are seriously making this argument. It is significantly more difficult to divine the intentions of a pedestrian than those of a driver, in motion, confined to a road, with much more limited mobility options than a pedestrian. It is *absolutely* not the same thing, and you're being extremely disingenuous when you claim that it is.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:29 p.m.

Marilyn, see the response I gave below. You've been required to yield to approaching motor vehicles at yield signs for decades now. Are you saying you know what an approaching car means but not an approaching pedestrian?

Forever27

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:50 p.m.

What a colossal waste of time and money. We're cutting funds to the police department because we can't afford to pay their salaries, yet we use their time like they are glorified crossing guards. The whole law is redundant. Pedestrians have always had the right of way in a cross walk. Traffic has always had to yeild to pedestrians. This law did absolutely nothing new except force drivers to be paranoid about random pedestrians (i.e. students) jaywalking from fear of being given a ticket by usually otherwise preoccupied police officers. Pedestrians need to use cross-walks. drivers need to stop fully at stop signs. Bicyclists need to obey the rules of the road. If all three of these things happen cities won't waste their time writing toothless laws and the police won't waste their time "enforcing" pedestrian traffic.

Goober

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:45 p.m.

What a waste of valuable resources. On the other hand, I guess city council and the mayor are trying to establish a new art 'money pool & fund source'.

Homeland Conspiracy

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:44 p.m.

I don't remember voting for this...

Jeff Gaynor

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:04 p.m.

We have a representative government; there are many things we don't directly vote on.

gofigure

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:56 p.m.

We didn't. 2 words.... City Council

David Cotton

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:43 p.m.

I would prefer more definition in the law. What does approaching mean? I say drop the approaching the crosswalk language and replace it with standing at the entrance of the crosswalk waiting to cross.

CincoDeMayo

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:04 p.m.

KJMClark Of course it's easier to know what an approaching car intends to do. By law, a car can only go a predetermined way on the road. By law, a pedestrian can go in ANY direction on the street (within the crosswalk ,marked or unmarked, parameters), sidewalk, grass, etc. You are being obtuse with that question.

Long Time No See

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 3:05 a.m.

KJMClark, yeah, you are being obtuse, and you just proved it.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:59 p.m.

Djacks - it's also illegal for a pedestrian to leave a protected location and walk into traffic that can't safely stop. They covered that. Next. And like the guy yesterday, no one is asking you to get out of your car and push it to a stop. The actual effort to stop a car involves moving your right foot a few inches and pushing with about 20 pounds of force for a few seconds. long time sightless - *you* think *I'm* being obtuse??? Come on, be honest. The difference is that you could get hit by the car you didn't yield to, but you can bully the pedestrian into standing there. I have a yield sign I go by in my neighborhood just about every day. No, it's not at all obvious what a motorist is going to do, as I've seen them do all sorts of stuff. The only safe assumption is that they're going to cross the intersection, which is the same safe assumption you're being asked to make for a person walking. Waterdipper - that's me! Hi! (Plymouth and all.) If they're walking along on a sidewalk, they're not approaching the crosswalk, they're walking past it. No, you don't have to stop for that. If you see them turn onto the sidewalk ramp going from the sidewalk to the crosswalk, they're approaching the crosswalk. Yes, you have to stop for that.

Waterdipper

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:32 p.m.

Suppose a pedestrian is walking on a sidewalk parallel to a street with a mid-block crosswalk, e.g., Plymouth Rd. Now, as a driver, I see the pedestrian on the sidewalk walking parallel to the street and approaching the crosswalk, which is 90 degrees from his/her present direction of travel. According to this poorly conceived language, if the pedestrian is "approaching" the crosswalk, I must stop. BUT...the pedestrian may or may not have intention to change direction and cross the road. Further, I have no idea what the legal definition of "approaching" a crosswalk is...as noted in numerous other comments. This language does not make sense. City Council should remove the word "approaching." The Ordinance will be just as effective and improve safety just as much without this vague language. Write to your City Council representative and ask that they amend the Ordinance to make sense...or explain to you what "approaching" means.

kfolger

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:46 p.m.

I approached a cross-walk yesterday while driving and noticed there were two pedestrians in the sidewalk square right before the cross-walk. I dutifully waited for them to cross. One did, but the other kept standing and then lit up a cigarette. Suspecting it was some kind of police sting, I refused to drive through until the person finally, impatiently waved me along.

Woman in Ypsilanti

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:52 p.m.

I think pedestrians should be required to signal their intentions to drivers.

Long Time No See

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:41 p.m.

KJMClark, I can't help but think you're being intentionally obtuse here. Of course there's a huge difference between a car approaching on a street where there is a yield sign and a pedestrian approaching a crosswalk. There is rarely any question about what the car will do - it isn't likely to suddenly stop and wander off in another direction, reverse direction, stop and wait to get on the bus at the bus stop that is at the same location, or any number of other things that pedestrians routinely do. This law requires prescience and mind-reading abilities. There are a number of locations where bus stops are at the same location as crosswalks, and it simply is not possible to know whether people waiting at that location are intending to cross the street or get on the bus. There are any number of other similar examples where mind-reading in required in order to comply with this law.

djacks24

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:02 p.m.

"You've been required to yield to approaching motor vehicles at yield signs for decades now. Are you saying you know what an approaching car means but not an approaching pedestrian?" The problem is this is very vague and in my opinion asking for trouble. Example: Pedestrian approaches crosswalk assuming traffic will stop for them to cross. Walks into intersection and is hit by a motorist who is unaware of the law or has not fully formed a habit out of stopping at crosswalks. Horrible but avoidable accident happens hurting or killing pedestrian and ruining a motorists life. If its perfectly reasonable to ask oncoming traffic to stop at a crosswalk, it should be perfectly reasonable for there to be compromise and ask a pedestrian traveling at a much slower pace, who is not trying to stop a several hundred pound automobile at a higher than walking pace rate of speed to possibly stop and look before crossing.

andys

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:39 p.m.

Don't go bringing common sense into this David, this is the Ann Arbor City Council we are talking about here!

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:30 p.m.

David, see the response I gave below. You've been required to yield to approaching motor vehicles at yield signs for decades now. Are you saying you know what an approaching car means but not an approaching pedestrian?

Craig Lounsbury

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:42 p.m.

I wonder how long it will be before some pedestrian with a chip on his shoulder because he can't afford a car decides to go out and stop some cars by 'hanging around' a crosswalk? might be some "fun" for the middle school crowd....but you didn't hear it from me.

abc

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:10 p.m.

Craig - You are on the right track but if I were to loiter in the street I could get a ticket for obstructing traffic. If however I just hung around a corner like I was waiting for a bus, or for a friend to pick me up, then everyone would HAVE to stop because they have no reason to believe that I didn't want to cross.

abc

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:56 p.m.

That exact event happened yesterday at Kingsley & Fourth. A guy waltzs into the intersection sees three cars waiting for him from different directions. He stops, laughs, points, laughs some more, does a pirouette, stops and laughs again, turns and makes eye contact with each driver... and then leaves the intersection.

djacks24

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:53 p.m.

Good point! New activity for bored kids. Or the angry adolescent who is told to go outside and get some fresh air for a change.

Craig Lounsbury

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:31 p.m.

"The ordinance further states that every pedestrian crossing a street at any point other than within a marked crosswalk — or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection — must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the street." Do I read that to say... A. every pedestrian crossing a street at any point other than within a marked crosswalk......must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the street." AND B. every pedestrian crossing a street..... within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection — must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the street." emphasis on part B. It seems to suggest there is no presumption of a cross walk at an intersection unless its actually marked. Am correct in that reading?

CincoDeMayo

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:52 p.m.

I read it the opposite as your first post here, understanding that at every intersection now, whether marked or unmarked, (unless there is a traffic control) a vehicle must stop if somebody is on that corner (because they may be "approaching" the street.). In addition to stopping for people at any other crosswalk.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:32 p.m.

Three.

Craig Lounsbury

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:50 p.m.

so is the assumption at an unmarked "T" intersection that there are 3 crosswalks or 1?

Craig Lounsbury

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:45 p.m.

Now that I reread it a couple more times I see your correct Ignatz. But it still seems a tad confusing the way its worded to me.

Ignatz

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:41 p.m.

I interpret that as the pedestrians have the right of way at marked crosswalks and any intersection whether it's marked or not. Vehicles have the right of way otherwise.

a2roots

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:30 p.m.

The sooner this thing get tossed the better. Waste of taxpayer dollars again. If I am not mistaken children are usually taught to walk to a corner, look both ways and if there is traffic present wait till it is safe to cross. I guess this old way is not good anymore. Please explain why not???

MIKE

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:44 p.m.

KJM: Many times. I have 3, and my oldest is 23. Never a problem.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:49 p.m.

Andys- did you miss the bit about driving being a privilege? a2roots - yes, I understand that you think brimstone and darnation will come from this, because... well just because! Mike, how many times have you tried to cross with small kids in tow? James - yes, we should enforce the jaywalking ordinances downtown, yes we should enforce cyclists stopping at stops and red lights - and we should enforce speed limits. Dude my Ranger pickup says you don't know what you're talking about. I have nothing against drivers or driving - I really don't hate myself. But I don't like putting myself and my convenience above the law and other people's safety.

james

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:26 p.m.

"Because the roads belong to the public, and we treat *people* equally. A pedestrian who gets to the crosswalk first isn't supposed to have to stand there all day just because the motorists don't want to have to push on their brake pedal. The pedestrian is supposed to have to wait for the first gap in traffic or the first motorist who has time to stop. The first motorist who has time to stop is supposed to yield to the pedestrian who got there first." Okay, just admit that you don't like cars and be done with it. It's pretty obvious that you are biased against drivers. Yes,we are all "equal", but you don't seem to even mention that downtown, Jaywalking around campus and crossing at a light when it CLEARLY says "do not walk" is the norm in Ann Arbor. These are both very unsafe, yet nobody that supports this law seems to even care about them.

MIKE

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:57 p.m.

KJM, I've been walking for decades, and I've never had to wait "forever" to cross. Once I had to wait for a minute (on a 8 lane street), but never more than that.

a2roots

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:38 p.m.

@kjm...please read prior thread. No sense repeating how ridiculous I think this ordinance is. It will be some poor soul that is going to get splatted, vehicles damaged and occupants injured which unfortunately will eventually cause this thing to get tossed. And the "privileged people" are those that support this since they are a distinct minority voice that has the ears of our inept city council.

andys

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:48 p.m.

"privileged people" There's the anger slipping out.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:39 p.m.

Because the roads belong to the public, and we treat *people* equally. A pedestrian who gets to the crosswalk first isn't supposed to have to stand there all day just because the motorists don't want to have to push on their brake pedal. The pedestrian is supposed to have to wait for the first gap in traffic or the first motorist who has time to stop. The first motorist who has time to stop is supposed to yield to the pedestrian who got there first. The old way was just that - the first motorist who could stop for a pedestrian in the crosswalk had to stop. The motorists ignored that, and decided that they would just bully their way through the crosswalk by never slowing down. If they won't slow down, the pedestrians won't risk their lives by trying to cross, so the pedestrians had to stand around forever waiting. No, it's hardly fair that someone who's actually expending some calories to transport themselves has to wait forever for a bunch of privileged people sitting around to let them cross the street.

David Cahill

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:29 p.m.

The City is posting incorrect "local law" signs. They say stop for pedestrians within a crosswalk. But the new ordinance requires that a driver stop for a pedestrian approaching a crosswalk. Someone ticketed for an "approaching" pedestrian should have a good defense if s/he points out the defective signs. Why couldn't the City have taken the quite simple step of posting proper signs?

oldgaffer

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 1:31 p.m.

I agree completely with David. The ordinance is vague and unenforceable. Who in the world drafted it? Impossible for any driver to known whether a pedestrian is approaching the crosswalk with intention of using it, or to wait for a friend, or whatever. And what about the pedestrians who waive the driver on? (I do that all the time when I'm a pedestrian.) A police officer might not see the waive and ticket the driver after the pedestrian has melted into the crowd.

MIKE

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:55 p.m.

Not only should everyone who gets a ticket fight it, but anyone who opposes this "law" should stay out of the downtown area until it's repealed.

MG

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:36 p.m.

Everyone who gets a ticket should take it to court and argue that current signage is misleading.

Long Time No See

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:34 p.m.

The city made a lot of noise about putting up signs to educate people about the ordinance, and then put up a bunch of signs that actually conflict with the ordinance. I hope someone who gets a ticket is willing to fight this stupidity in court.

Roadman

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:34 p.m.

@David: Tell Sabra there is widespread public support for the recent rollbacks in police department layoffs and slicing of officer benefits. City Council needs to keep up the good work.

grye

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:33 p.m.

Not sure that ignorance of law would be an excuse. The signage may not be correct but the law has been discussed and is available for your reading pleasure.

Stephen Landes

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:17 p.m.

I'm neither a lawyer nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn last night, but it seems to me that the sign or control device at the intersection trumps whatever an ordinance might say. Drivers who faithfully follow what the control sign at the intersection says should have a good argument in court.

rob

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:14 p.m.

If the "proper signs do not exist", maybe it's because the ordinance is improper , not the signs?

abc

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.

KJMClark - shouldn't that have been dealt with by the city before they passed this law? Should a person from out of town be rung up for $100 when all they did was follow the posted sighs?

andys

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:35 p.m.

KMJ, you are just making the point that this law is a cluster foxtrot from the get go. As if all the difficulties you point out are justification for using incorrect signs. I think my head is going to explode!

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:21 p.m.

Yeah, and I replied to it the other day too. The "proper" signs don't exist. The signs they used are ones already approved by FHWA and in the MUTCD. They would have had to spend about 20 times as much per sign to get custom printed ones, *and* filled out an annual application for an experimental sign (for each location, I think), to use a non-approved sign.

EyeHeartA2

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:01 p.m.

+1 I mentioned that the other day too. Could it POSSIBLY be more confusing? Actually, I think that is what the buffons on council were after anyway.

Ron Granger

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:24 p.m.

Boo hoo. The police are cracking down on drivers who ignore pedestrians at crosswalks. The sky is falling. Help, my rights are being infringed!

jcj

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:16 p.m.

Ms Clark You consider this forum the proper posting of this ordinance? There should at the least be a sign at every entrance to the city letting unsuspecting drivers know about it! To do less than that ONLY confirms that this is to stuff the coffers!

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:40 p.m.

Marilyn - ignorance is no excuse. That's part of the reason they're publicizing this. Now that you know the ordinance, are you personally going to pretend you don't know the law?

Marilyn Wilkie

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:59 p.m.

Did you notice that the ordinance does not match the signs that were posted? Does this make sense to you? If someone has not read the ordinance, but does see the sign, should they be ticketed?

Tom Joad

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:19 p.m.

It's the law follow it. I also agree with Jean below about Liberty and 5th. There needs to be a flashing red installed there in addition to the stop signs. I almost got ran over by a guy who just flew through there on Liberty without even attempting to stop. That is a very dangerous intersection especially with the construction. It befuddles people.

MIKE

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:51 p.m.

Why on earth would you need a sign and a light? Shouldn't one or the other do the job?

Tex Treeder

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:14 p.m.

While I understand the intent behind this ordinance, I disagree with its implementation. The state of Michigan licenses drivers, therefore the state legislature should be the one to enact laws that cover traffic. Different cities with different ordninances breeds nothing but confusion and ultimately make the roads less safe due to the inconsistency across the state. I recommend the City Council repeal this ordinance.

andys

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:41 p.m.

Well, yes that explains it, you're against common sense, and obtuse ... sooooooooooo I guess I'll just move along.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:45 p.m.

Andys - "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Einstein I can't see why AA City Council should stick to a prejudice that you learned before the age of eighteen. Better to protect the safety of people than the convenience of other people.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:43 p.m.

State law specifically allows for local jurisdictions to have different ordinances as long as they don't conflict with the state law. There is no state law on this. There is a Michigan State Police recommended set of ordinances, and the only difference between this ordinance and the recommended ordinance is the approaching bit. However, look below and you'll see that you already have to yield to approaching cars and trucks when you get to a yield sign. That's state law. So the Ann Arbor ordinance is closer to the state "Yield" law than the recommended ordinance.

andys

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:31 p.m.

"I recommend the City Council repeal this ordinance." Good luck with that! They don't give a lick about what you and I think. Its the intelligencia of Ann Arbor, lacking even a scintilla of common sense, that keeps electing these whacked-out city council members. Good day.

Macabre Sunset

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:13 p.m.

One troubling fact I learned yesterday: Ann Arbor has unmarked police cars. That tells me their priorities are more related to stuffing their coffers than in public safety. As for this issue - creating a law that's different from everyone else's law will, in the long run, result in more harm than good. Some of those crosswalks are not safe in the slightest.

Long Time No See

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 3:22 a.m.

KJMClark, I'd be thrilled if that was enforced. Let's see them properly enforce that (and the new law) at the intersection of State and South U. That should be a real cash cow for the city. I'd also be very happy if bicycle riders were ticketed when they don't adhere to traffic laws. I'd also want to see pedestrians ticketed if they interferes with traffic flow when outside of a legal crosswalk or when walking against traffic signals. I also want to see drivers ticketed for failing to use their turn signals properly and for failing to stop properly at stop signs or traffic lights.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:43 p.m.

Long time - so you'd be OK if they dropped the "approaching" wording and *enforced* the 'yield to pedestrians, stopping and remaining stopped if necessary to so yield' part?

Long Time No See

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:31 p.m.

KJMClark: so, it's the "same but different"? That means it's different. It's not "the same with a difference". That's complete nonsense. You can say it's "similar", but it isn't the same unless there are no differences.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:47 p.m.

Our ordinance is the same as the one adopted by most other cities and villages in Michigan. The only difference is the "approaching" bit. State law on yielding already requires you to yield to "approaching" traffic. And yes, pedestrians are traffic, under the definition in state law.

djacks24

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:44 p.m.

"One troubling fact I learned yesterday: Ann Arbor has unmarked police cars." Who doesn't? Especially a city or jurisdiction with as many residents as A2.

John A2

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:11 p.m.

UM? This new law is going to cause more accidents and kill more people in doing so. I want to know how many people actually know about this new law. What about the 100,000 people that are here for the football games, are they aware of this law, I would say not. Why don't they give tickets to the students that just decide to cross right in front of a car or cars, and never even notice that they almost got killed, or maimed. Cross walks should be the place where people cross the streets, and further more there should be a regular traffic light or blinking red light. This is a dangerous law that will prove to be hazardous to both drivers and pedestrians. What is this city thinking. Cars are moving along and driver are watching other cars and someone happens to come near a crosswalk, so someone slams on there brakes and causes a five or ten car accident and kills two adults and five children. What a great law, not.

golfer

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 2:03 p.m.

why can they not put a device like they have on huron street where you have to push a button to cross. then a light comes on. this is the best way to warn drivers. can you not see a person talking on a cell phone and not stopping. going to be a lot of rear ends with this law. this law is fine but the problem is the drivers. you need a light to let us know a person wants to cross. take some of you fine money and put them up. willing to bet the city will say it cost to much. tickets and points are enough. sure next idle law.

CincoDeMayo

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:34 p.m.

I never heard that about round about a, just that people Didn't like them. I love them done properly and in the right location. (Same as my feelings for the crosswalks.). They are Not safe pedestrian crossings (Nixon and Huron Parkway), and they can be done improperly (Lee and 23). The circle should also be flatter than the ones on Maple for improved visibility, but they are OK. The ones at 23 and Geddes, thankfully, are some of the best, and have been a great asset. I hate seeing crosswalk markings in ANY of them. They are also called TRAFFIC circles for a reason. The focus is on traffic. I don't mind a pedestrian crossing there - they just can't rely on driver to also have their full attention on them. My opinion.

james

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:15 p.m.

"Yeah, yeah, they said that about roundabouts "They're death-traps! No one will figure them out! They'll have to station a tow-truck to clear out all the rear-end crashes!" In reality there were a few minor fender benders at first, and very few crashes since." This is different. Once you get used to a roundabout, it's easy to figure out when to stop and go. This is like having a moving stop sign. It will be different every time because there's no knowing when someone wants to cross.

Roadman

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:27 p.m.

Roundabouts? Were they not immortalized by the group "Yes?

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:11 p.m.

Yeah, yeah, they said that about roundabouts "They're death-traps! No one will figure them out! They'll have to station a tow-truck to clear out all the rear-end crashes!" In reality there were a few minor fender benders at first, and very few crashes since. People will figure it out quickly and everything will be fine, though some people will gripe about it for the next 30 years.

Smart Logic

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:09 p.m.

The city is $800 richer and a serial rapist is still on the loose.

Roadman

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:32 p.m.

@Smart Logic: My feelings exactly. Same reason there is swelling citizen support to continue cutting police benefit packages down to size. E-mail or call your City Council representative to let them know of your support of Tom Crawford and Steve Rapundalo in slicing PD funding and employee benefits.

jeanarrett

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:06 p.m.

Yay. Now please start enforcing it at that mess at Fifth and Liberty where you are taking your life into your hands to cross either way. You can write quite a few "running a stop sign" tickets there too. Big revenue for the City at just one corner! One more question, though--are the City buses excempt from this ordinance?

hepcat

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:38 a.m.

This law doesn't affect this intersection since it has stop signs. i have yet to have seen a city bus observe this law.

Dave Sullivan

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:05 p.m.

Next time you guys do a ride along suggest some improvements to the HAWK signal for the colorblind. I can't tell what colors are on there....red...yellow...whatever. I have the same problem with those blinking lights in the country but if it is red they always have a stop sign. The HAWK is making me nuts cause I never know what to do. Also, are they planning on telling anyone about this law??? Or Just spring it on people? The lack of communication by the city is disgusting.

Rici

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 8:39 p.m.

Are you the only person in the city who didn't receive the mailing? I've also read about it in local newspapers, and seen materials around town (such as at the library).

Peregrine

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:12 a.m.

The top two lights are red, the lower light is yellow on each "device". The "devices" are often installed over each lane. The HAWK goes through four phases. 1. A flashing yellow to initially alert drivers. 2. A solid yellow. 3. A solid red. 4. A flashing red to let traffic know it's about to turn off and they should get ready to proceed.

unclemercy

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:23 p.m.

the hawk is red. only red.

5c0++ H4d13y

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:13 p.m.

<a href="http://michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_HAWK20Signal_327859_7.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_HAWK20Signal_327859_7.pdf</a> HTH

Steve

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.

I sense an influx of indignant motorists. Remember to take a step back and consider what is really being asked of you. Slow down, be more alert and maybe evaluate your entitlement issues.

Jonny Spirit

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:42 p.m.

Time to go back to Pre-School and stop teaching them look both ways. Now all you have to do is stand at the side of the road and wait for the cop sitting at the corner wasting my tax payers money to pull someone over, and when the cop pulls them over cross the street. Another useless law. Way to waste more money Ann Arbor.

a2roots

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 8:29 p.m.

@kjmclark...Proponents of such laws/ordinances of this kind waste tax dollars which serve and appease very few. Hhhmmm...bet anything you are a bike rider and proponent of the non-motorized transportation plan which is also a bunch of hooey.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:48 p.m.

A2roots, maybe you should update what you learned in kindergarten. That's great advice for small children, but that's not what the laws say.

a2roots

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:27 p.m.

Not sure about you, but I was taught to walk to a corner, look both ways and if traffic present wait till it is safe to cross.

Macabre Sunset

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:10 p.m.

Irony, thy name is pedestrian.

friend12

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 5:59 p.m.

The law has too much room for interpretation and now that they are enforcing it I am guessing it will get tossed by the courts. In the example give the ticket probably shouldn't have been given. "traffic-control signals" were in place i.e. the yellow flashing light and the law as written the car did not need to yield to the pedestrian until they actually stepped into the cross walk. Another problem is what happens if someone is a at a corner, suddenly turns and decides to cross in a different direction. The car approaching or go through the intersection at that point is now breaking the law. It essentially turns any intersection where a pedestrian is standing into a 4 way stop. Can you imagine this law in a city like New York? It would be shear grid lock. I think they need to get rid of it before it starts costing the city big time legal fees.

Rici

Fri, Sep 23, 2011 : 8:39 p.m.

That particular intersection (7th and Washington) is HEAVILY marked that you must stop for pedestrians in crosswalks - there are official road signs facing both directions, and one of the "A2 Stops for Crosswalks" yard sales. Ignorance is no excuse of the law, and at that particular intersection, there is no excuse for ignorance!

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:39 p.m.

james - when was the last time you saw a 10mph speed limit on a public road? State law doesn't allow for speed limits that low. The lowest they allow is 15 in public parks and 25 in business districts and residential areas. You're basically saying they should never be allowed to have a law that most other cities in Michigan have in place and is part of the national model for laws and ordinances.

james

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 10:33 p.m.

"and here, is that pedestrians in marked crosswalks have the right of way." If it's a 40+MPH zone, most state and city laws either have a stop sign, light, or warning, to prevent accidents. Ann Arbor doesn't. This is the difference. No matter how much you hate cars and think this is safer, it isn't. In a city setting or 10MPH zones, it's different. Did you know that there are lots of laws on the books that they don't really follow anymore? For the safety of everyone, this should be one of them. If they want traffic to stop, add a stop sign or light.

KJMClark

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 7:58 p.m.

Mick52 - there is no state law about marked mid-block crosswalks. There is a state law requiring everyone to obey traffic control devices, and mid-block crosswalks are traffic control devices. State law allows for local jurisdictions to have ordinances to cover situations where there isn't a state law. And the model ordinance recommended by the State Police, and adopted by most Michigan cities and villages says motorists must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Further, the state law covering "Yield" signs says you must yield to approaching traffic. So you have to yield to approaching motorists at a yield sign, but you don't have to yield to approaching pedestrians at a marked crosswalk that means yield to pedestrians? This is just one of those areas of law where there's the law, and what it says, and what people *want* it to say. A lot of people in SE Michigan want it to say that pedestrians *never* have right of way, but the law in most states, and here, is that pedestrians in marked crosswalks have the right of way. Motorists were *always* supposed to stop for pedestrians crossing in marked crosswalks. It took a new ordinance and some police enforcement for some people to realize that.

Mick52

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:28 p.m.

I also hope the district court will dismiss the tickets because it is not a typical violation. A driver will have no idea that they are violating what statewide is legal driving and have no way to know they are committing a violation. State law requires traffic yield to pedestrians crossing the road, not yielding to pedestrians at a crosswalk. No street in Ann Arbor takes long for traffic to clear in order for a pedestrian to safely cross.

Steve

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:04 p.m.

There are few intersections without signals in NYC. This is a small city issue and once we all get used to it, we'll all be better off.

5c0++ H4d13y

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 5:47 p.m.

[Insert bitter anger at other people on the roads here]

alarictoo

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 5:43 p.m.

Another useless poll. How about one that actually has some useful responses?

CincoDeMayo

Thu, Sep 22, 2011 : 12:15 p.m.

I love it, but it needs some changes to be effective.

jcj

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 11:09 p.m.

Ryan How about this. I believe this law is for the sole purpose of raising revenue.

Awakened

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:28 p.m.

"Will this make you less likely to frequent businesses in Ann Arbor?"

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 9:24 p.m.

A missing response: I will now enter the city limits of Ann Arbor only when absolutely necessary.

Marilyn Wilkie

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6:51 p.m.

response: the law does not explain the definition of "approaching", and the signs do not reflect the wording of the law. That is a response that I would like to see.

friend12

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 6 p.m.

I agree. How about asking if anyone likes the law.

Ryan J. Stanton

Wed, Sep 21, 2011 : 5:53 p.m.

What response would you have liked to have seen?

8 tickets written so far under Ann Arbor's new pedestrian safety ordinance, police say

Comments