Nor do we know how fast the driver was going, whether s/he was on a cell phone, etc. — only that s/he “was not drinking.”

Having lived in Athens myself, I do know that Lexington Road is surrounded by shopping, neighborhoods, schools, and parks. To be sure, like many quasi-suburban Athens thoroughfares, it is inhospitable to pedestrians, thanks to local officials who continue to ignore pleas for improvements. But it is not at all unusual for people to walk in this area.

Still, I do think that over the past 90 years or so street design has disproportionately favored the automobile over pedestrians (let’s not forget that jaywalking was not always a crime–or even a concept that people recognized).

But I don’t want to place undue blame on drivers. When you design a local street to comfortably accomodate speeds of 40 or 45 mph, for example, it seems a bit silly to criticize drivers who race through residential neighborhoods. My point is merely that a true solution would be to create streets that helped both drivers and pedestrians avoid crashes.

“Most pedestrian fatalities in 2007 occurred in urban areas (73%), at non-intersection locations (77%), in normal weather conditions (90%), and at night (67%).

…

Most pedestrian fatalities in 2007 occurred in urban areas (73%), at non-intersection locations (77%), in normal weather conditions (90%), and at night (67%).”

It would appear that you can significantly reduce your risk of being hit by a car by not drunkenly jaywalking at night.

This is why myself and nearly every other driver on the road slows down when there is a jaywalker in the street. Very few drivers *want* to hit anyone.

“We could debate whether or not to change this language…or we could just work on improving roadway design so it more safely accomodated pedestrians.”

I agree, but when it comes to the blame game, this is how I see it.

Hit and run in a crosswalk? I’m right there with you in your outrage. Guy, not speeding or drinking, hits some poor bastard jaywalking and stops to render aid? I’m going to sit that one out.

That’s why right after it warns pedestrians to yield the right-of-way, the CA Vehicle Code includes a clause explaining that “this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.”

We could debate whether or not to change this language…or we could just work on improving roadway design so it more safely accomodated pedestrians.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/misc_info.htm

“Pedestrian Responsibilities*

Yield the right-of-way to vehicles when you:

Cross or walk where intersections or crosswalks are not marked.
“Jaywalk” across a street between intersections, where no pedestrian crosswalks are provided.
*Joggers must obey pedestrian rules.

Remember: Making eye contact with the driver does not mean that the driver will see you or yield the right-of-way.

Do not suddenly leave a curb or other safe place and walk or run into the path of a vehicle close enough to be a danger to you. This is true even though you are in a crosswalk. The law states that drivers must take care for the safety of any pedestrian—but if the driver can’t stop in time to avoid hitting you, the law won’t help you.”

Is it wrong? Should it be changed?

What about this article, where a drunken pedestrian was nearly hit by a taxi? http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/081609/cop_482158391.shtml

Death penalty for public intoxication? No, more like a lack of personal responsiblity. Would you blame the taxi driver if the man had been hit?

Are you saying the train is to blame?

Unlike streets, which are EVERYWHERE, there are very few rail lines in any city. Unlike roads, theyre not meant to be shared, theyre designed exclusively for trains. As such, its not much to expect that pedestrians, bikes and cars take caution when crossing them. Theyre big and noisy too.

Also, even if you were to demand all trains opperate no faster than 10mph…it still can’t stop in time to prevent an accident, unlike a car.