Why is it a good idea for pedestrians to have the right-of-way?

June 7, 2013 9:52 AM

I'm looking for research comparing different regimes of pedestrian vs. car right-of-way and the impact of those laws on pedestrian injury and mortality rates (and possibly also the impact on urban quality of life.)

Background: In the ongoing and possibly endless neighborhood forum debate on cars vs peds/bikes, the pro-car side is saying that its stupid that pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks, that it should be the responsibility of the pedestrians to only cross the street when there are no cars that might hit them. Pedestrians are the ones who are going to get hurt, they should be the ones who should watch for cars, not the other way around.

I've seen studies on crosswalk or not-crosswalk, traffic slowing, ped vs. driver accident responsibility, etc. and the normative discussions about why drivers should yield to pedestrians. I'm looking forex-post quantitative research that provides the policy justification and harm-reduction evidence for the underlying premise that (in most cases) pedestrians should have the right of way and drivers should yield to pedestrians.

posted by RandlePatrickMcMurphy to Law & Government (19 answers total)

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. The psychology seems a simpler one: pedestrians are soft, cars are hard. Pedestrians hurt cars less than cars hurt pedestrians on impact. That is why pedestrians need more rights. Nobody argues the amount of impacts either way.
posted by Namlit at 10:22 AM on June 7, 2013 [4 favorites]

Here's an article that has an intro section that reviews some of the literature regarding empirical evidence for drivers yielding to pedestrians: Hamed MM. "Analysis of pedestrians’ behavior at pedestrian crossings" Safety Science 2001.

Bottom line is that if vehicle speeds are high and the delays for allowing the ped to cross are long, drivers are less likely to yield. Also, there is empirical evidence (see: Várhelyi A. "Drivers' speed behaviour at a zebra crossing: a case study." Accident Analysis & Prevention 1998) suggesting the default behavior of drivers is to not yield to pedestrians even with the "pedestrian has right of way" law so modifying driver's behavior through the built environment makes sense.
posted by scalespace at 10:27 AM on June 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

And, by analogy, big boats must yield to small boats in the water. Big boats are far more powerful, and capable of wrecking small boats if they collide; so even though small boats are more maneuverable, there could be situations where the small boats get "pinched" by big boat activity.

Now, a thought exercise: a person begins crossing the street, and a car simultaneously pulls out of driveway onto that street near the intersection. The car couldn't be seen beforehand. Who should yield - the pedestrian who may not have a fully safe path back to the sidewalk now (if he even sees the car - unlike the car, there's no legal requirement for him to keep scanning around himself), or the car that isn't even going full speed yet?
posted by IAmBroom at 10:43 AM on June 7, 2013

I can't tell you about specific research (I've lost access to most science since leaving uni life and their proxy servers) but I can give you a few things to look for. Your going to want to look at international comparisons.

From my international living experience England provides some useful differences from North American driving styles.

England has the 'no right of way for pedestrians regime' at intersections without traffic lights. Often times they don't even have stop signs - yield signs seem more common. They also do pedestrian scramble style traffic light intersections - the walk signal usually means ALL traffic is stopped rather than North American unidirectional traffic flows with turning.

Roundabouts have zero pedestrian right of way.

Jaywalking is not a crime and in fact is the often the rational choice (it is better to cross before a roundabout where you only have to time two traffic flows instead of 4+).

One important thing to keep in mind is that what is rational for a society is not necessarily rational for an individual. I can understand and appreciate that making cycling/walking seem safe can have the benefit of making it safe (eventually) by encouraging a critical mass of the behaviour but as an individual I still cycle with a helmet because I worry about immediate risks to my brain first and eventual benefits to society second. People in these debates seem to often forget that people usually make the choices they do for pretty good reasons.

Be very wary of the data you will find on advocate blogs. Often times they ignore the research they don't like.
posted by srboisvert at 10:52 AM on June 7, 2013

And, by analogy, big boats must yield to small boats in the water.

Big boats do not, as a rule, have to yield to small boats.

I'm far from expert, but I did have to study such rules so that I could get a license to operate a little fishing boat in northern Ontario.
posted by jon1270 at 10:56 AM on June 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Big boats most certainly do not yield to small boats. In fact, it's the other way around, since small boats are more maneuverable.
posted by kcm at 10:58 AM on June 7, 2013

Yeah, I thought little boats had to yield to big boats because they're more maneuverable. On preview: what kcm said.

Anyway, I think part of the reason we give pedestrians the right of way is because we count on pedestrians to make non-life-threatening decisions with that right of way. Pedestrians may not have a legal obligation to keep scanning the environment for cars, but any sensible pedestrian will do so, because although hitting a pedestrian with your car is surely a horrible experience, I have to imagine that getting hit by a car is worse.
posted by mskyle at 11:00 AM on June 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Not a legal thing exactly, more like a design thing: I saw some research a few years back which indicated that pedestrian safety improved in (European?) roundabouts that lacked clear heirarchy, thus forcing motorist, cyclists, and pedestrians to make eye contact and give right-of-way. If you are interested, you might find it on Cyburbia or Planetizen.

A quick google turns up this, but I do not think it is the same thing: Linky.
posted by Michele in California at 11:33 AM on June 7, 2013

There are two separate issues that you are combining into one. There is a policy issue dealing with laws and regulations that takes place on a governmental level and there is an engineering design issue revolving around making a street safe for all users. The bottom line in both issues is safety. Not all countries have the same safety regulations. The US has pretty good laws that enforce the rules of the road on a national level although there are plenty more on state and local levels. The TRB is one of the main research organization in the states to do research for policy decisions. Reports like this do quite a bit of research into the engineering analysis of different sites to provide pedestrian safety.

The basis behind all laws or rules of the road is to mitigate accidents and/or deaths. Every new regulation that is added is a response to deaths, accidents or strong safety concerns. Roadways in an urban environment are designed to accommodate all users, from pedestrians, bicyclists, buses, cars, streetcars, trucks, and sometimes horses and carriages. Few urban roads are designed solely for one type of transportation, they are designed so that all these types can co-exist without dangerous safety conflicts. There really isn't a general overall study saying that pedestrians always have the right-of-way or cars have the right-of-way. The rational discussions are always about safety and uniformity not about who is more deserving of the right of way. It is generally a design decision based on that location and its specific conditions.

I really can't imagine a debate on whether the yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk law is right or wrong. Is the law about stopping at a stop sign right or wrong? It's neither, it is a law put in place as a solution to a problem.

A dense urban office district will need to provide more pedestrian crosswalks giving the pedestrian the right-of-way or you will create other problems. Traffic counts are done on site which include all modes of transportation as well as movements to best design a solution making the location safe. Hope that helps to shed some light on how roads are designed.
posted by JJ86 at 11:39 AM on June 7, 2013

In the U.S., each individual state's Motor Vehicle Code (or equivalent) defines lawful traffic behavior at crosswalks. In New York, motor vehicles must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. In New Jersey, however, the law states that vehicles must come to a complete stop when pedestrians are present in a marked crosswalk, and yield at an unmarked crosswalk. So what exactly it means for pedestrians to have the right of way really depends on what drivers are supposed to do at cross walks in a particular state. I'm pretty sure that every State uses "yield" or "stop" laws at least at marked crosswalks, so I don't know that there is a study that addresses your specific question.


You might have a look at this NHTSA report from 2008 though. Generally, very few pedestrian fatalities occur in crosswalks. The plurality occur on roadways where no crosswalk is available.

International comparisons (many done by John Pucher at Rutgers and Ralph Buehler at Virgnia Tech) show time and again that, generally, Countries with stricter policies designed to increase safety and slow down cars experience far lower crash and fatality rates for both cyclists and pedestrians.
posted by voiceofreason at 11:49 AM on June 7, 2013

Michele in California, I think you're thinking of Hans Monderman, who was a Dutch traffic engineer famous for removing street signs. Tom Vanderbilt's profile of him is also good.
posted by stopgap at 11:49 AM on June 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

A lot of places I have been in the United States have laws/regulations which say cars must yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. These places also have laws/regulations which state pedestrians need to exercise due care when crossing the road. The way I understand this, pedestrians cannot just walk out into the road, even at a crosswalk, when it would be unsafe due to traffic. This is why we have walk/no walk pedestrian signals.
posted by Sarcasm at 11:55 AM on June 7, 2013

Yes, that link looks like what I was remembering.
posted by Michele in California at 11:58 AM on June 7, 2013

Pennsylvania has this weird law where pedestrians ONLY have the right of way in a crosswalk if the crosswalk has no traffic control signals or traffic control signage. This means that if a pedestrian is crossing with the Walk light, and a car should turn into a crosswalk and strike the pedestrian, the car is not at fault and no ticket is issued. I was stunned when I first discovered this and to this day do not understand the reasoning. Here's a PDF from the PA Department of Transportation which includes laws governing pedestrians and statistics on pedestrian accidents.
posted by Toekneesan at 12:30 PM on June 7, 2013

OK, I goofed the boat example...
posted by IAmBroom at 1:59 PM on June 7, 2013

There's the law and then there's convention. I had always heard, growing up in the SF Bay Area, that pedestrians always had the right of way, no matter what. If a pedestrian jaywalked away from an intersection, he/she could get a ticket for that jaywalking, but if you are driving you could still go to jail for hitting them if there was a reasonable chance for you to stop. They have the right of way even though they are breaking the law.

I've since seen no evidence that the law is written like this. Nevertheless, this was the general perception, and there was a feeling of pride about it ("we are good drivers, we care about pedestrians"). When I was in Rhode Island, there seemed to be a feeling of pride that not only is it okay to hit a pedestrian who's recklessly jaywalking, it is your duty as a citizen to do so, and you can sue them for damages afterward.
posted by eye of newt at 2:22 PM on June 7, 2013

I've since seen no evidence that the law is written like this.

It isn't written quite exactly like that, but pretty much every state, county, and city (in the U.S., anyway--can't say about other countries), has a provision in motor vehicle code similar to this:

304.012. 1. Every person operating a motor vehicle on the roads and highways of this state shall drive the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner and at a rate of speed so as not to endanger the property of another or the life or limb of any person and shall exercise the highest degree of care.

I'm mentioning this because I think it is a big part of the answer to the OP's question: Drivers have to exercise a degree of care higher--FAR higher--than do pedestrians, or cyclists, or people just doing ordinary things, because the automobile is inherently a very dangerous thing. A big, heavy motor vehicle going even 20MPH is a lethal mass, moving about in close proximity to other humans--and that goes double, triple, and more so when that mass in moving 30, 40, 50 MPH and faster.

Whenever you are doing something inherently dangerous to others, the law puts the onus on you (in this case, the operator of the vehicle) to take the extra degree of care to ensure that this activity does not endanger others.

Walking is a normal, ordinary human activity, not exceptionally dangerous to others in any way. It's the introduction of the large, fast-moving mass that adds exceptional danger to the situation, and is the responsibility of the large-fast-moving-mass operator to be in ultimate control of that danger.
posted by flug at 3:23 PM on June 7, 2013 [4 favorites]

i think you need to re-frame this argument. instead of focusing on the proof/data that cars should yield to peds, you should focus on the benefits of having a safe,walkable environment that is is welcoming to peds. I don't have the all the links on me right now, but there are both economic (recent research showing walkable neighborhoods hold their value much better during the recession) and health benefits (take a look at the research on blue zones).

however, i'm also on a neighborhood board, and i'm guessing you are just in for endless arguments no matter what you say....
posted by nanhey at 7:03 PM on June 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

I realize that this is anecdata, and not research but, if you want to see the negative side of pedestrians having the right of way, come to Ethiopia. I was told when I arrived in country that the people (and goats and donkeys) have been walking the streets since before cars were invented so they have the right of way.

Fair point, I guess, but the problem is that Ethiopians are not taught to fear or even respect cars when they are walking. Many of them don’t even look at the oncoming traffic before they cross the street. I see dozens of examples of this every fucking day.

A couple of weeks ago we had a fatality because a man jumped over a concrete barrier to cross a four-lane highway. This happens quite frequently. If the shortest distance between where you are and where you want to go is the highway, you cross the highway.

I have even seen people sleeping on the side of the road. Ironically, they stay off the sidewalk so that they don’t disturb the pedestrians walking by.

All of this has a negative impact on the “urban quality of life” of drivers, not to mention the pedestrians who get hit.

Anyhow, to answer your question, RandlePatrickMcMurphy, it not always better for pedestrians to have the right of way. I don’t mean to seem too “pro-car” as you put it, but there does have to be an effort by pedestrians to avoid accidents too. It seems to me that restricting crossing the street to only at crosswalks protects both pedestrians and drivers.
posted by Gringos Without Borders at 9:32 PM on June 8, 2013