Q: At an intersection, where the flow of traffic in question does not have a stop sign, and there are several cars flowing through it, does a pedestrian have the right to step off the curb to cross as long as it does not cause an “immediate” hazard? Who has the right-of-way?
A: I’ll get to the actual answer in a moment, but I want to lead with this: Don’t hit the pedestrian. Yep, you already knew that, I know. My point here is that there is the right-of-way, and then there’s the right thing to do.
We often talk about who has the right-of-way, but that’s really a distortion of the language in our laws. The law doesn’t define who has the right-of-way; it states who must yield the right-of-way. Maybe that sounds like two different ways of saying the same thing, but there is a difference. Think of right-of-way as something floating out there in the universe that you can never take for yourself, but you’re free to give to someone else. Okay, now it sounds like I’m writing a new age self-help book. But the point still stands.
Back to the question. The Revised Code of Washington doesn’t use the term “immediate hazard,” but you have the right idea. The law states that drivers must stop for pedestrians in the roadway, but adds, “No pedestrian . . . shall suddenly leave a curb . . . or otherwise move into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to stop.”
Does that mean it’s legal for a pedestrian to step into the roadway if you have to slam on your brakes and spill your coffee all over your dash to stop in time? Or does it mean that if the pedestrian is waiting at the curb, hopeful that you’ll stop for him, that you can keep on going because has hasn’t actually planted his foot on the roadway yet? You can see here that while understanding right-of-way is important, if someone uses it as a tool to justify being aggressive on the roadway, they’ve missed the point.
And that brings us back to where we started. If a pedestrian is waiting at an intersection to cross the street, facing a steady stream of cars, at what point does she just take her chances and hope the next car will stop for her? If you’re a couple cars back and see her with her toes lined up on the curb, you could choose to come to an easy stop and let her cross. Does the law demand it? No. But you could be the person that creates an opportunity for a pedestrian to safely cross the street.
You might think that’s an insignificant action, but it matters. Over the past decade, annual pedestrian fatalities have increased in Washington, from 62 in 2009 to 107 in 2019. Regardless of who is at fault or who should yield the right-of-way, when cars and pedestrians collide, the pedestrian has the most to lose. I’d argue, and I think the law agrees with me that, while we all have a responsibility to be law-abiding and safe road users, the burden of that responsibility falls on drivers. Along with every other traffic rule, the law adds, in part, that “every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any person upon any roadway . . .”
Of course, safe driving has to be rooted in an understanding of the law, which includes knowing when to yield the right-of-way. And then we can move beyond the question of “Who has the right-of-way?” to “Did everyone get home safely?”
This is an area where it helps to have a dash cam. Some pedestrians are totally clueless and will stand at an intersection when they have no intent or desire to cross. So for example, you may see the pedestrian standing at the corner from over a half block away, not crossing despite the lack of any traffic. Seemingly you could assume they don’t want to cross and are just waiting for something in that poorly chosen location, but that is risky. At least with a dash cam if they did suddenly step out you’d have some evidence of what occurred and it wouldn’t just be your word against theirs.