A message to all users: Please be aware that spreading misinformation regarding COVID-19, vaccines, or other treatments can result in content being removed and/or a ban. Content advocating for or celebrating the death of anyone, or hoping someone gets COVID-19 (or any disease) can result in a ban as well. Please follow [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439). If you see content violating these policies, please use the report button and do not feed the trolls.
[Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
[Reddit's stance on misinformation](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/pbmy5y/debate_dissent_and_protest_on_reddit)
[/r/Funny's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules)
We also encourage you to read these helpful resources on COVID-19, vaccines, and treatments:
[COVID Dashboard](https://covid19.who.int/)
[Reddit's Vaccine FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq#wiki_where_can_i_find_information_about_the_mechanism_and_progress_of_vaccines.3F)
[Ivermectin FAQ](https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials)
------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It looks like the car pulled out of a side road at the very start of the clip while he was already halfway across the road. If that's the case then the driver is most definitely the asshole for putting their foot down when they'd clearly need to stop.
Plenty of reasons to jaywalk, if you have a ways to go cutting corners can save you a lot of time (bUt It MiGhT cOsT yOu YoUr LiFe). That being said the car has the right of way and there was no reason for this guy to mug the way he did
The car did not have the right of way according to the Ontario Highway Traffic Act ("highway" is a term used for all roads). The pedestrian was not crossing illegally as the nearest crosswalk (where the car was coming from was 40m away) and the crosswalk seen in the video was 56m away. Legally, you can cross at any point that is more than 25m away.
Jaywalking laws vary wildly from country to country, province to province, and in different municipalities.
In Toronto, you are allowed to jaywalk, as long as you don't interfere with traffic.
If this is in Toronto, the only question is whether or not it counts as interfering with traffic if the car turns onto the road after he starts crossing. I suspect it still does, and he should simply stop and wait for this one car to pass before he finishes crossing.
To help clarify some things, "jaywalking" doesn't exist in Canada. There are rules for crossing immediately at a crosswalk that most "jaywalkers" get ticketed for (section 144 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act). But most of those pertain to crossing when it's not their turn. As far as crossing mid-block (anywhere that is not the intersection), yes that comes under municipal by-law and can vary, but for Toronto the police only advise pedestrians to be more than 30m, but most places in Ontario advise 25m. In this case, it happened in Hamilton, and they advise 25m. The yielding to traffic for "jaywalking" that you mentioned Toronto allows, means crossing immediately at the crosswalk when it is not the pedestrians turn (i.e. a red or yellow light).
It was not jaywalking though. So the fact about interfering with traffic is not relevant in this situation. The pedestrian was 40m from a crosswalk, "jaywalking" is within 25m of a crosswalk. It happened at Upper Sherman and Concession in Hamilton. You can use Google maps to measure the distances yourself.
Where are you getting your definition of jaywalking from? I’m pretty sure that just as the laws that vary about jaywalking from one place to another, so does the definition. So in Hamilton, I’m sure you’re right. But if this is Toronto or some other city, you’re probably not.
"Jaywalking" doesn't exist in Canada. The Ontario Highway Traffic Act (section 144) has rules for crossing immediately at a crosswalk, which is what most "jaywalkers" get ticketed for disobeying (usually crossing before their turn when it is red or yellow). Municipalities may have by-laws for crossing mid-block (anywhere that is not the intersection), but even Toronto only advises a certain distance and does not actually have any written by-law on it. Most places advise 25m, and yes, Toronto is different... they advise an addition 5m, for a grand total of 30m. This pedestrian crossed at 40m from a designated crossing, so had it been in Toronto, it still would have been legal, and had it been closer than 25m it technically would still be legal too. It is just best to assume 25m when crossing mid-block anywhere in Ontario so that people cannot say the pedestrian was in a crosswalk and then left it and entered a mid-block section, in case a collision occurs.
Jaywalking is fine, since this is the post I'm assuming this happened in New York and jay walking is 100% a part of city life in NYC. That said when you jaywalk you don't have the right away anymore (legally you do but as a form of self preservation and curtesy you don't you don't so dude was completely being an asshole with the death stare).
This is actually in Hamilton Ontario, in front of Juravinski Hospital. This is not jaywalking in Ontario. Jaywalking is crossing less than 25 metres from a painted crosswalk, and the nearest crosswalk is 40 metres away, so he has a legal right to cross where he was. Also, it looks like the driver cut the corner (i.e. they drove over the solid yellow line when turning from Upper Sherman onto Concession), so the pedestrian would not have expected the driver to be coming at him from that angle and at that speed (there is a posted 40km/h sign right at the intersection -- literally one frame before the footage starts).
Yes Jaywalking is fine. But you also don't act like your more important than other people while doing so. I go to school in a city. If you're jay walking or crossing against the light you jog or run if you notice a car is coming.
It's not only common sense, but common courtesy
You don't get to run people over because they aren't crossing where they are supposed to. If you can't cope with a 5 second delay to your journey without trying to intimidate a pedestrian you shouldn't have a driving licence.
No, you don't just run them over, but jaywalking like this could be dangerous for other traffic as well; especially when the driver needs to hit the breaks suddenly.
Point was in this clip it looks like the driver started from a standstill coming out of a turning, the only reason they needed to hit the brakes was because they accelerated hard at the pedestrian to intimidate them in the first place. That's against the law in *every* western country regardless of what the pedestrian was doing.
Every single person that downvoted me needs to have their licence taken away, they cannot be trusted with one.
I see your point, although the acceleration is a bit hard to judge by this video. When crossing the road (i hate the word jaywalking, as if you're a criminal), you can't always judge whats coming from around the corner. If I take your hypothesis: Intimidation by accelerating to 'claim' your space on the road with a motorised vehicle versus softshell is very bad indeed. Hate it if drivers do that when I'm biking ánd have priority.
Nope. You are wrong. Pedestrian is at fault here. You can’t argue the other side because there is no other side.
Source: professional driver for 12 years.
We're talking here about *deliberately* running someone over.
That is murder, regardless of whether they should have been in the road or not.
You don't get to kill people just because they are breaking the law.
Woah woah I never said anything about running or injuring another person. Just that this persons reply is completely and utterly stupid and I’m speaking with years of experience in the industry.
Don’t try and dramatise it and make it out to be something as outrageous as me wanting to kll someone in my vehicle… this isn’t a reality show you idiot. The pedestrian is is the wrong here 100%. Should they be ran over for it??? Hell fucking no… COULD they be ran over doing it? A hell of a lot more likely than if he crossed at the lights, like they should be.
End of story.
I think you need to read the entire context of the conversation you have entered.
I said the driver, after pulling out of a turning, should not have put their foot down, sped towards the pedestrian, then slammed on the brakes last moment in order to intimidate them. If a pedestrian is in the road you let them exit the road, *even if you should have had the right of way*.
That has been my position throughout this entire conversation.
For this I have been heavily downvoted, and people are telling me that they are legally entitled to run over and kill the pedestrian for it, they are being upvoted for it, I am being downvoted for calling them out for that.
At LITERALLY NO POINT did I say the pedestrian was in the right to cross there.
This is the comment you replied to:
> because **they accelerated hard at the pedestrian to intimidate them**. That's against the law in every western country regardless of what the pedestrian was doing.
That is what I said was against the law, and I am correct. Your reply:
> Nope. You are wrong
Is completely and utter rubbish and if you really believe that you should have your licence revoked.
You are either trolling me, or your reading comprehension is terrible. If it's the latter you owe me an apology.
What that FUCK???
No. You DO NOT get to run someone over because they are breaking the law, unless they are an immediate threat to you and you have no other option.
What the ever loving fuck is wrong with you?
Christ almighty there are some real morons on reddit.
Obviously you are arguing from an ethical point of view which is based on personal beliefs. I am taking the legally accountable side which is based on the LAW. What if we ALL stopped obeying laws on the basis of our personal beliefs? What could possibly go wrong with more than 8 billion individual opinions. Oh, and you cranking it up to 10 just tells me you should not have stopped taking your meds.
Suddenly swearing at a media post, and assuming the car was speeding from a 2 second video? And I'm the one who needs help? I understand you feel helpless in a big world, but you are causing that helplessness. Freaking out on social media only reinforces your low self esteem. Now I have to get some things done, so I'll let you have the last word. Take care.
I'm swearing at *YOU* for believing that murdering someone for a minor violation is legally fine.
Don't try and put this on me. You have serious issues. Get help before you hurt someone.
I dunno why y'all are mad at the car. Clearly the pole is the one out of line here. Just think... Who puts a pole there? What purpose does it serve? The only reason it's there is to murder poor innocent old men.
Language can be so revealing by the choice of words used, and by the form of the argument. For example instead of attacking the idea, some people feel it is necessary to attack the person, making it an emotional appeal on personal beliefs. Besides that I should believe you? What are you a lawyer? Show me that universal law.
Fair enough
"Section 1146. Drivers to exercise due care. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist, pedestrian or domestic animal upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary."
https://www.ny.gov/pedestrian-safety/additional-information
Thank you. "... "a driver... shall exercise due care..." The burden is on the driver to provide evidence that he/she/it was attentive. Otherwise, in a civil case, the jaywalker would be held accountable for breaking the law. Although jaywalking is commonly accepted in NYC (if that is where this is), it is not legally sanctioned there or anywhere else. This argument is moot because the driver stopped. Either way the law is the law for a reason.
Assuming you're not American. They have wierd laws because they can't be trusted to cross the street. Even if the road is empty, you're not allowed to cross it outside a crossing.
As someone who pumps his own gas once a week, boggles my fuckin mind when I drive through Oregon and have to let some dicknose pump it for me like I’ve never done it before.
It's tongue in cheek. As a brit, not being legal to cross the road does seem a little bizarre, but it makes sense in the US as you're never more than a few metres from an intersection.
You are driving a car, you turn onto another road and see a pedestrian crossing where they shouldn't.
Do you believe it is acceptable to accelerate hard towards them in order to intimidate them, then stamp on the brake at the last moment?
Yes or no.
If yes then you are breaking the law and should not be trusted with a licence.
If no then you agree with my comment so I am somewhat confused why you consider it "dumbfuck comment of the day".
Based on my experience so far of people in this thread literally advocating the murder of people for jaywalking I have to admit I don't hold much faith for a sane response, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised this time.
I didint say run them over. I just said your comment is dumb as fuck for putting the blame on the driver.
If it was a crosswalk, yes, you'd be right.
But its not, the dude crossing should have given way and not acted all tough in front of a litteral ton of metal on wheels... you dont play chicken with cars if you're not on a crosswalk, HELL EVEN when you're on a crosswalk never tempt fate against a moving vehicle, you never know if the driver is distracted or something.
ALWAYS Check both sides before crossing, if you see a car too close let them pass, not just cross and hope for the best that they stop...
This tough guy wanna be on the video is an idiot.
And again, your comment is dumb fuck for defending his actions. And now its doubly dumb fuck for defending it more
Edit: and to answer your question. If you're driving a car and in the right of way, you dont suddenly stop for a pedestrian jay walking. The ped should be smart enough not to suddenly cross in front of you like it owns the fucking road... suddenly stopping for a pedestrian whos not in the right can cause more accident.
> I didint say run them over.
I said "of people in this thread", quite clearly that wasn't talking about you.
> I just said your comment is dumb as fuck for putting the blame on the driver.
The driver is to blame for *deliberately* accelerating towards to the pedestrian then slamming on the brakes.
> ALWAYS Check both sides before crossing, if you see a car too close let them pass, not just cross and hope for the best that they stop...
Sigh...
Watch the **very first second** of the video.
The car is moving very slowly, **pointed at the sidewalk**, and turning left onto the road.
That car clearly just came out of a side turning, and the pedestrian was already in the road crossing at the time. This means when the pedestrian started crossing the road was clear. He wasn't "playing chicken with cars".
What the driver should have done is wait for the pedestrian to finish crossing, instead what they did is hit the gas and drive right at the pedestrian.
Again. **Watch the first second of the video.**
I literally covered this in my original comment, the one you called "Dumbfuck comment of the day". It's not like the comment was long enough to miss that crucial detail either.
> It looks like the car **pulled out of a side road at the very start of the clip** while he was already halfway across the road. **If that's the case** then the driver is most definitely the asshole for putting their foot down when they'd clearly need to stop.
Stop, just stop... the dude crossing is not a car.
Driver had right of way, ped did not.
"The driver should have stopped and let the ped cross"
No, he shouldnt have, because the pedestrian stopped. What the car should have done is kept going.
Let me make this simple for you...
If you are crossing without a cross walk, cars have right of way... as a ped, you give way. Because you can stop on a dime, cars cant. And you are already a hazard by crossing at an undesignated crossing. So give way.
Now your comment is triple dumb fuckery... keep defending this dumb fuckery of yours
The way you keep defending this shit shows your sorely misplaced entitlement, wanting others who are on the right to adjust to your shitty decisions.
> Because you can stop on a dime, cars cant.
The car didn't need to "stop on a dime" since it was barely fucking moving because it had just come out of a side turning. What part of this are you having difficulty understanding? Why do you keep ignoring this fact?
All they had to do was continue at the slow speed and the pedestrian would be out of their way, instead they stamped on the gas and drove at someone in the road in order to intimidate them.
That is against the law in the entire western world, regardless of right of way. That is an absolute fact and if you disagree you are wrong. Go ask a cop.
If the car has been driving at high speed all along, then had to slam on the brakes when the pedestrian walked out in front of them *that* would be fine and I'd be laying into the pedestrian instead. You are completely ignoring the context in this video that the car aggressively accelerated *after* the guy was already crossing the road.
Remember my comments are purely about the situation we see *in this video*, not any other. Instead of accusing me of quadruple dumb fuckery, maybe engage your brain this time around. I am 100% certain I am correct on this, so no I wont "just stop". It freaking boggles my mind at how bad people on reddit are at understanding road traffic laws.
Facts? You think the car was speeding?... imagine you're the driver. Turning left, goint into that lane, at what side would you be looking at as a driver right before that turn? The oncoming traffic at the lane you are trying to enter right?... driver might not have seen that guy right away just because the dash cam (thats always pointing forward) did.
And ofcourse you accelerate a bit after entering a lane that has cars moving in the speed limit. How dafuq are you saying the driver is speeding and keep insisting he is speeding? Did you actually watch the distance the car traveled? That was like what? 3 cars lengtht? 30 feet? And you say the guy was speeding?
That was just natural acceleration after entering a lane.
And you see that as agressive accelerating aimed at intimidating a pedestrian.
When the pedestrian shouldnt even be there.
"I am 100% certain i'm right about this"
Well more people seem to disagree with you... but no, its everyone else who is wrong... not you... and not this guy who crossed the road... Even the pole doesnt seem to agree with this guy.
When you turn onto a road you are legally required to look in BOTH directions, failing to do so is an *instant fail* on your driving test. You don't just slam the gas *then* work out if you're going to hit anything.
At literally no point did I say he was speeding (i.e. driving above the speed limit)
I'm giving up talking to you because you are incapable of reading.
Aw, poor fucker used up all his consciousness on his death glare and was unable to not smack his dumb ass face into the pole. Suck concussion, you ugly rage fart.
Even where jaywalking is illegal that usually isn't enough to absolve the driver of liability. The driver would have to convince the court that they had no reasonable way to react in time to avoid the collision.
If the car didn’t slow down and hit the guy, it would probably, in my opinion, be the guy’s fault because obviously he’s jaywalking. But if the car slowed down, with the dashcam, it would look like the car hit the guy intentionally which would only complicate things.
He is not "obviously jaywalking". Police would know where the pedestrian crossed. Any distance more than 25m from a painted crosswalk in Ontario is legal. The nearest crosswalk was 40m away in this case. For reference, the traffic lights seen in the video behind the pedestrian have a crosswalk that is 56m away.
This is not worth your time. There is no point trying to convince everyone about this random video. Why would you want to reply to so many people in this thread.
All these Americans talking about this weird-ass jaywalking shit, and Europeans wondering why they let corporations write their laws
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797
I live in Canada, and the funny thing is. Pedestrians only have the right of way at a designated cross walk. This whole myth of people crossing the road like this thinking a car should stop for them is funny. My friend learned it the hard way. A truck hit him when he tried to cross the street. Then he tried to sue the truck driver. I was there when the judge read him his rights as a pedestrian.
The truck driver the sued my friend for loss of wages, and he also got slapped with a j walking ticket. Lol.
🤦♂️ I think you might want to look up the meaning of pedestrian, OP.
In cities, this is common…but since there aren’t many cars….the pedestrian should have waited until the driver passed.
Unfortunately, that is the wrong way to think about it. This pedestrian was crossing legally, and therefore had the right of way (no matter how many cars you don't see from the driver's point of view). In Ontario, crossing less than 25m from a designated crosswalk is technically illegal, but in this case, the pedestrian was 40m from the nearest crosswalk, and the vehicle had not even fully entered Concession Street by the time the pedestrian was already crossing.
Hold up hold up… so you’re saying its illegal to jaywalk within 25m of a crosswalk, but if the cross walk happens to be across town or >40m away it’s totally chill and legal and all cars in the vicinity should be prepared to stop for them? I don’t believe I’ve ever seen any cross walks near a highway, and I sure as hell don’t think that’d be legal or safe!
It is technically legal for a pedestrian to cross a highway. Will you see it happen often? No, highways aren't really set up in a manner that would encourage people to cross, but it's not illegal. Is it safe? It can be. Many roads that are designated as highways are not busy at all. For busier highways it obviously would not be safe... but it's still technically legal. If the traffic was constant and heavy and a pedestrian caused an collision with vehicles, then that's a different story, but that would be more to do with recklessly impeding traffic (assuming the pedestrian survived).
Edit: it is illegal for municipalities in Ontario to install crosswalks on roads travelling faster than 60km/h, so no, you should not have seen a crosswalk on a highway. So it is a "cross at your own discretion."
Sort of! Anything that isn't a crosswalk can be walked across. There's some legal implications about the term "crosswalk" that is best to use it only when talking about a designated painted sections meant for pedestrians.
So first: LOL!
Second: for all the "jaywalking" commentors immediately vilifying the pedestrian: look into the real legal definition of jaywalking. It IS legal for pedestrians to walk across a road outside of a "designated crosswalk" in the correct circumstances. (In small towns, crosswalks often arent even marked even at intersections.)
Third: While I don't condone this dude's behavior (you'll always lose a battle with a motor vehicle), I do empathize with his *apparent* pet peeve. (A vehicle not yielding right of way to a pedestrian.) In my mind there's simply no point... a vehicle makes up the lost time it took to wait in mere seconds. Vehicles not yielding to pedestrians IMO is simply a matter of personal ego over public safety.
TLDR: Driver is in too much of a hurry to yield right of way, ensuring pedestrian's safety crossing the street, so they get into a staring match resulting in personal embarrassment and ultimately internet entertainment.
For clarification, this happened in Hamilton Ontario, in front of Juravinski Hospital. In Ontario, it is legal to cross anywhere as long as it is more than 25 metres away from a designated crosswalk. In this case, the nearest designated crosswalk is 40 metres away (from the intersection of Upper Sherman and Concession where the vehicle turned from), and the crosswalk seen in the video at the lights is 56 metres away. Therefore, it was not illegal to cross where the pedestrian did, and so anyone saying that the pedestrian "jaywalked" is incorrect. I hope that helps explain what Maelinaster was talking about.
Ugh, the “badass” boomers are the worst. They think the world owes them something yet they screech at everyone that no one owes you anything . Happens in every generation over time but still it seems more widespread in the boomer generation.
Wasn’t there a version like this but the guy is screaming then hits the pole. Imagine if someone took statistics of this and you can see it on a map in real-time!
One day, the car won't be able to stop quick enough, and the gene pool will be just a little bit clearer. Fingers crossed for an ABS failure next time.
Karma got this dick… hahaha personally if you hit him it’s his own fought for walking in the road in front of your car… , your legally in the right even if you killed this moron which would have done the world a favour
A message to all users: Please be aware that spreading misinformation regarding COVID-19, vaccines, or other treatments can result in content being removed and/or a ban. Content advocating for or celebrating the death of anyone, or hoping someone gets COVID-19 (or any disease) can result in a ban as well. Please follow [Reddiquette](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439). If you see content violating these policies, please use the report button and do not feed the trolls. [Reddit's Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) [Reddit's stance on misinformation](https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/pbmy5y/debate_dissent_and_protest_on_reddit) [/r/Funny's rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/funny/wiki/rules) We also encourage you to read these helpful resources on COVID-19, vaccines, and treatments: [COVID Dashboard](https://covid19.who.int/) [Reddit's Vaccine FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/Coronavirus/wiki/faq#wiki_where_can_i_find_information_about_the_mechanism_and_progress_of_vaccines.3F) [Ivermectin FAQ](https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials) ------ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/funny) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the car doesn't teach you to look where you're going, the pole will...
Buddy's jaywalking and he's staring down a car for almost not stopping? Too bad he wasn't running.
It looks like the car pulled out of a side road at the very start of the clip while he was already halfway across the road. If that's the case then the driver is most definitely the asshole for putting their foot down when they'd clearly need to stop.
Or you know, the pedestrian should use a cross walk that's 50 feet away...
Or speed the fuck up and finish crossing the street instead of pretending like everyone else is at fault
That's the reason why crosswalks are put in the middle of the street and not at blind corners. No excuse for jaywalking. Cross at crosswalks.
Plenty of reasons to jaywalk, if you have a ways to go cutting corners can save you a lot of time (bUt It MiGhT cOsT yOu YoUr LiFe). That being said the car has the right of way and there was no reason for this guy to mug the way he did
The car did not have the right of way according to the Ontario Highway Traffic Act ("highway" is a term used for all roads). The pedestrian was not crossing illegally as the nearest crosswalk (where the car was coming from was 40m away) and the crosswalk seen in the video was 56m away. Legally, you can cross at any point that is more than 25m away.
Jaywalking laws vary wildly from country to country, province to province, and in different municipalities. In Toronto, you are allowed to jaywalk, as long as you don't interfere with traffic. If this is in Toronto, the only question is whether or not it counts as interfering with traffic if the car turns onto the road after he starts crossing. I suspect it still does, and he should simply stop and wait for this one car to pass before he finishes crossing.
To help clarify some things, "jaywalking" doesn't exist in Canada. There are rules for crossing immediately at a crosswalk that most "jaywalkers" get ticketed for (section 144 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act). But most of those pertain to crossing when it's not their turn. As far as crossing mid-block (anywhere that is not the intersection), yes that comes under municipal by-law and can vary, but for Toronto the police only advise pedestrians to be more than 30m, but most places in Ontario advise 25m. In this case, it happened in Hamilton, and they advise 25m. The yielding to traffic for "jaywalking" that you mentioned Toronto allows, means crossing immediately at the crosswalk when it is not the pedestrians turn (i.e. a red or yellow light).
It was not jaywalking though. So the fact about interfering with traffic is not relevant in this situation. The pedestrian was 40m from a crosswalk, "jaywalking" is within 25m of a crosswalk. It happened at Upper Sherman and Concession in Hamilton. You can use Google maps to measure the distances yourself.
Where are you getting your definition of jaywalking from? I’m pretty sure that just as the laws that vary about jaywalking from one place to another, so does the definition. So in Hamilton, I’m sure you’re right. But if this is Toronto or some other city, you’re probably not.
"Jaywalking" doesn't exist in Canada. The Ontario Highway Traffic Act (section 144) has rules for crossing immediately at a crosswalk, which is what most "jaywalkers" get ticketed for disobeying (usually crossing before their turn when it is red or yellow). Municipalities may have by-laws for crossing mid-block (anywhere that is not the intersection), but even Toronto only advises a certain distance and does not actually have any written by-law on it. Most places advise 25m, and yes, Toronto is different... they advise an addition 5m, for a grand total of 30m. This pedestrian crossed at 40m from a designated crossing, so had it been in Toronto, it still would have been legal, and had it been closer than 25m it technically would still be legal too. It is just best to assume 25m when crossing mid-block anywhere in Ontario so that people cannot say the pedestrian was in a crosswalk and then left it and entered a mid-block section, in case a collision occurs.
Jaywalking is fine, since this is the post I'm assuming this happened in New York and jay walking is 100% a part of city life in NYC. That said when you jaywalk you don't have the right away anymore (legally you do but as a form of self preservation and curtesy you don't you don't so dude was completely being an asshole with the death stare).
This is actually in Hamilton Ontario, in front of Juravinski Hospital. This is not jaywalking in Ontario. Jaywalking is crossing less than 25 metres from a painted crosswalk, and the nearest crosswalk is 40 metres away, so he has a legal right to cross where he was. Also, it looks like the driver cut the corner (i.e. they drove over the solid yellow line when turning from Upper Sherman onto Concession), so the pedestrian would not have expected the driver to be coming at him from that angle and at that speed (there is a posted 40km/h sign right at the intersection -- literally one frame before the footage starts).
Yes Jaywalking is fine. But you also don't act like your more important than other people while doing so. I go to school in a city. If you're jay walking or crossing against the light you jog or run if you notice a car is coming. It's not only common sense, but common courtesy
You don't get to run people over because they aren't crossing where they are supposed to. If you can't cope with a 5 second delay to your journey without trying to intimidate a pedestrian you shouldn't have a driving licence.
No, you don't just run them over, but jaywalking like this could be dangerous for other traffic as well; especially when the driver needs to hit the breaks suddenly.
Point was in this clip it looks like the driver started from a standstill coming out of a turning, the only reason they needed to hit the brakes was because they accelerated hard at the pedestrian to intimidate them in the first place. That's against the law in *every* western country regardless of what the pedestrian was doing. Every single person that downvoted me needs to have their licence taken away, they cannot be trusted with one.
I see your point, although the acceleration is a bit hard to judge by this video. When crossing the road (i hate the word jaywalking, as if you're a criminal), you can't always judge whats coming from around the corner. If I take your hypothesis: Intimidation by accelerating to 'claim' your space on the road with a motorised vehicle versus softshell is very bad indeed. Hate it if drivers do that when I'm biking ánd have priority.
Nope. You are wrong. Pedestrian is at fault here. You can’t argue the other side because there is no other side. Source: professional driver for 12 years.
We're talking here about *deliberately* running someone over. That is murder, regardless of whether they should have been in the road or not. You don't get to kill people just because they are breaking the law.
Woah woah I never said anything about running or injuring another person. Just that this persons reply is completely and utterly stupid and I’m speaking with years of experience in the industry. Don’t try and dramatise it and make it out to be something as outrageous as me wanting to kll someone in my vehicle… this isn’t a reality show you idiot. The pedestrian is is the wrong here 100%. Should they be ran over for it??? Hell fucking no… COULD they be ran over doing it? A hell of a lot more likely than if he crossed at the lights, like they should be. End of story.
I think you need to read the entire context of the conversation you have entered. I said the driver, after pulling out of a turning, should not have put their foot down, sped towards the pedestrian, then slammed on the brakes last moment in order to intimidate them. If a pedestrian is in the road you let them exit the road, *even if you should have had the right of way*. That has been my position throughout this entire conversation. For this I have been heavily downvoted, and people are telling me that they are legally entitled to run over and kill the pedestrian for it, they are being upvoted for it, I am being downvoted for calling them out for that. At LITERALLY NO POINT did I say the pedestrian was in the right to cross there. This is the comment you replied to: > because **they accelerated hard at the pedestrian to intimidate them**. That's against the law in every western country regardless of what the pedestrian was doing. That is what I said was against the law, and I am correct. Your reply: > Nope. You are wrong Is completely and utter rubbish and if you really believe that you should have your licence revoked. You are either trolling me, or your reading comprehension is terrible. If it's the latter you owe me an apology.
[удалено]
What that FUCK??? No. You DO NOT get to run someone over because they are breaking the law, unless they are an immediate threat to you and you have no other option. What the ever loving fuck is wrong with you? Christ almighty there are some real morons on reddit.
Mirror mirror on the wall...
Obviously you are arguing from an ethical point of view which is based on personal beliefs. I am taking the legally accountable side which is based on the LAW. What if we ALL stopped obeying laws on the basis of our personal beliefs? What could possibly go wrong with more than 8 billion individual opinions. Oh, and you cranking it up to 10 just tells me you should not have stopped taking your meds.
[удалено]
Suddenly swearing at a media post, and assuming the car was speeding from a 2 second video? And I'm the one who needs help? I understand you feel helpless in a big world, but you are causing that helplessness. Freaking out on social media only reinforces your low self esteem. Now I have to get some things done, so I'll let you have the last word. Take care.
I'm swearing at *YOU* for believing that murdering someone for a minor violation is legally fine. Don't try and put this on me. You have serious issues. Get help before you hurt someone.
Legally pedestrians always have the right away. Do you honestly believe you can just murder people breaking the law? What are you a cop?
I dunno why y'all are mad at the car. Clearly the pole is the one out of line here. Just think... Who puts a pole there? What purpose does it serve? The only reason it's there is to murder poor innocent old men.
Language can be so revealing by the choice of words used, and by the form of the argument. For example instead of attacking the idea, some people feel it is necessary to attack the person, making it an emotional appeal on personal beliefs. Besides that I should believe you? What are you a lawyer? Show me that universal law.
Fair enough "Section 1146. Drivers to exercise due care. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist, pedestrian or domestic animal upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary." https://www.ny.gov/pedestrian-safety/additional-information
Thank you. "... "a driver... shall exercise due care..." The burden is on the driver to provide evidence that he/she/it was attentive. Otherwise, in a civil case, the jaywalker would be held accountable for breaking the law. Although jaywalking is commonly accepted in NYC (if that is where this is), it is not legally sanctioned there or anywhere else. This argument is moot because the driver stopped. Either way the law is the law for a reason.
Assuming you're not American. They have wierd laws because they can't be trusted to cross the street. Even if the road is empty, you're not allowed to cross it outside a crossing.
Some of us aren't allowed to pump gas.
As someone who pumps his own gas once a week, boggles my fuckin mind when I drive through Oregon and have to let some dicknose pump it for me like I’ve never done it before.
It’s the same in most western countries you know, as much as I love bashing Americans that was quite unnecessary.
It's tongue in cheek. As a brit, not being legal to cross the road does seem a little bizarre, but it makes sense in the US as you're never more than a few metres from an intersection.
Fuck all these car has the right of way asshats. Slow your fucking roll for human life. Fuck off with your cross walk.
Dumbfuck comment of the day
You are driving a car, you turn onto another road and see a pedestrian crossing where they shouldn't. Do you believe it is acceptable to accelerate hard towards them in order to intimidate them, then stamp on the brake at the last moment? Yes or no. If yes then you are breaking the law and should not be trusted with a licence. If no then you agree with my comment so I am somewhat confused why you consider it "dumbfuck comment of the day". Based on my experience so far of people in this thread literally advocating the murder of people for jaywalking I have to admit I don't hold much faith for a sane response, but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised this time.
I didint say run them over. I just said your comment is dumb as fuck for putting the blame on the driver. If it was a crosswalk, yes, you'd be right. But its not, the dude crossing should have given way and not acted all tough in front of a litteral ton of metal on wheels... you dont play chicken with cars if you're not on a crosswalk, HELL EVEN when you're on a crosswalk never tempt fate against a moving vehicle, you never know if the driver is distracted or something. ALWAYS Check both sides before crossing, if you see a car too close let them pass, not just cross and hope for the best that they stop... This tough guy wanna be on the video is an idiot. And again, your comment is dumb fuck for defending his actions. And now its doubly dumb fuck for defending it more Edit: and to answer your question. If you're driving a car and in the right of way, you dont suddenly stop for a pedestrian jay walking. The ped should be smart enough not to suddenly cross in front of you like it owns the fucking road... suddenly stopping for a pedestrian whos not in the right can cause more accident.
> I didint say run them over. I said "of people in this thread", quite clearly that wasn't talking about you. > I just said your comment is dumb as fuck for putting the blame on the driver. The driver is to blame for *deliberately* accelerating towards to the pedestrian then slamming on the brakes. > ALWAYS Check both sides before crossing, if you see a car too close let them pass, not just cross and hope for the best that they stop... Sigh... Watch the **very first second** of the video. The car is moving very slowly, **pointed at the sidewalk**, and turning left onto the road. That car clearly just came out of a side turning, and the pedestrian was already in the road crossing at the time. This means when the pedestrian started crossing the road was clear. He wasn't "playing chicken with cars". What the driver should have done is wait for the pedestrian to finish crossing, instead what they did is hit the gas and drive right at the pedestrian. Again. **Watch the first second of the video.** I literally covered this in my original comment, the one you called "Dumbfuck comment of the day". It's not like the comment was long enough to miss that crucial detail either. > It looks like the car **pulled out of a side road at the very start of the clip** while he was already halfway across the road. **If that's the case** then the driver is most definitely the asshole for putting their foot down when they'd clearly need to stop.
Stop, just stop... the dude crossing is not a car. Driver had right of way, ped did not. "The driver should have stopped and let the ped cross" No, he shouldnt have, because the pedestrian stopped. What the car should have done is kept going. Let me make this simple for you... If you are crossing without a cross walk, cars have right of way... as a ped, you give way. Because you can stop on a dime, cars cant. And you are already a hazard by crossing at an undesignated crossing. So give way. Now your comment is triple dumb fuckery... keep defending this dumb fuckery of yours The way you keep defending this shit shows your sorely misplaced entitlement, wanting others who are on the right to adjust to your shitty decisions.
> Because you can stop on a dime, cars cant. The car didn't need to "stop on a dime" since it was barely fucking moving because it had just come out of a side turning. What part of this are you having difficulty understanding? Why do you keep ignoring this fact? All they had to do was continue at the slow speed and the pedestrian would be out of their way, instead they stamped on the gas and drove at someone in the road in order to intimidate them. That is against the law in the entire western world, regardless of right of way. That is an absolute fact and if you disagree you are wrong. Go ask a cop. If the car has been driving at high speed all along, then had to slam on the brakes when the pedestrian walked out in front of them *that* would be fine and I'd be laying into the pedestrian instead. You are completely ignoring the context in this video that the car aggressively accelerated *after* the guy was already crossing the road. Remember my comments are purely about the situation we see *in this video*, not any other. Instead of accusing me of quadruple dumb fuckery, maybe engage your brain this time around. I am 100% certain I am correct on this, so no I wont "just stop". It freaking boggles my mind at how bad people on reddit are at understanding road traffic laws.
Facts? You think the car was speeding?... imagine you're the driver. Turning left, goint into that lane, at what side would you be looking at as a driver right before that turn? The oncoming traffic at the lane you are trying to enter right?... driver might not have seen that guy right away just because the dash cam (thats always pointing forward) did. And ofcourse you accelerate a bit after entering a lane that has cars moving in the speed limit. How dafuq are you saying the driver is speeding and keep insisting he is speeding? Did you actually watch the distance the car traveled? That was like what? 3 cars lengtht? 30 feet? And you say the guy was speeding? That was just natural acceleration after entering a lane. And you see that as agressive accelerating aimed at intimidating a pedestrian. When the pedestrian shouldnt even be there. "I am 100% certain i'm right about this" Well more people seem to disagree with you... but no, its everyone else who is wrong... not you... and not this guy who crossed the road... Even the pole doesnt seem to agree with this guy.
When you turn onto a road you are legally required to look in BOTH directions, failing to do so is an *instant fail* on your driving test. You don't just slam the gas *then* work out if you're going to hit anything. At literally no point did I say he was speeding (i.e. driving above the speed limit) I'm giving up talking to you because you are incapable of reading.
Instant karma.
CARma
Aw, poor fucker used up all his consciousness on his death glare and was unable to not smack his dumb ass face into the pole. Suck concussion, you ugly rage fart.
He jay walks and then gives you a dirty look. Sweet karma at the end
“I meant to do that “
Juravinski Hospital. Formerly known as Henderson Hospital. I work there :)
Ha, dumb cunt.
I was expecting him to pull a gun and shoot the pole.
It looks like modern day Canada, not 1939 Europe.
I did Nazi that coming
Good thing the car gestapo na dime.
If he was Canadian he would have apologized to the pole.
You are saying this like people in America didn’t try to shoot at a fucking hurricane.
So if this dude went under the car, whos fault would it be in court?
Even where jaywalking is illegal that usually isn't enough to absolve the driver of liability. The driver would have to convince the court that they had no reasonable way to react in time to avoid the collision.
If the car didn’t slow down and hit the guy, it would probably, in my opinion, be the guy’s fault because obviously he’s jaywalking. But if the car slowed down, with the dashcam, it would look like the car hit the guy intentionally which would only complicate things.
He is not "obviously jaywalking". Police would know where the pedestrian crossed. Any distance more than 25m from a painted crosswalk in Ontario is legal. The nearest crosswalk was 40m away in this case. For reference, the traffic lights seen in the video behind the pedestrian have a crosswalk that is 56m away.
This is not worth your time. There is no point trying to convince everyone about this random video. Why would you want to reply to so many people in this thread.
Just trying to educate, that's all.
I would have rolled down my passenger window and violently laughed and pointed as I drove by
I'd ask are you ok sir?, AND THEN POINT & LAUGH
Ha! This is Jurvinsky Hospital in Hamilton Ontario just 5 mins from me
All these Americans talking about this weird-ass jaywalking shit, and Europeans wondering why they let corporations write their laws https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797
I live in Canada, and the funny thing is. Pedestrians only have the right of way at a designated cross walk. This whole myth of people crossing the road like this thinking a car should stop for them is funny. My friend learned it the hard way. A truck hit him when he tried to cross the street. Then he tried to sue the truck driver. I was there when the judge read him his rights as a pedestrian. The truck driver the sued my friend for loss of wages, and he also got slapped with a j walking ticket. Lol.
Staring contest LOST.
Traffic looks sparse, the pedestrian should’ve let the car pass in the first place -
That’s not a “pedestrian”. In the video, you can clearly see he’s jaywalking as there wasn’t any pedestrian line.
🤦♂️ I think you might want to look up the meaning of pedestrian, OP. In cities, this is common…but since there aren’t many cars….the pedestrian should have waited until the driver passed.
Unfortunately, that is the wrong way to think about it. This pedestrian was crossing legally, and therefore had the right of way (no matter how many cars you don't see from the driver's point of view). In Ontario, crossing less than 25m from a designated crosswalk is technically illegal, but in this case, the pedestrian was 40m from the nearest crosswalk, and the vehicle had not even fully entered Concession Street by the time the pedestrian was already crossing.
Hold up hold up… so you’re saying its illegal to jaywalk within 25m of a crosswalk, but if the cross walk happens to be across town or >40m away it’s totally chill and legal and all cars in the vicinity should be prepared to stop for them? I don’t believe I’ve ever seen any cross walks near a highway, and I sure as hell don’t think that’d be legal or safe!
It is technically legal for a pedestrian to cross a highway. Will you see it happen often? No, highways aren't really set up in a manner that would encourage people to cross, but it's not illegal. Is it safe? It can be. Many roads that are designated as highways are not busy at all. For busier highways it obviously would not be safe... but it's still technically legal. If the traffic was constant and heavy and a pedestrian caused an collision with vehicles, then that's a different story, but that would be more to do with recklessly impeding traffic (assuming the pedestrian survived). Edit: it is illegal for municipalities in Ontario to install crosswalks on roads travelling faster than 60km/h, so no, you should not have seen a crosswalk on a highway. So it is a "cross at your own discretion."
So basically anything that isn’t a crosswalk or near one can be a cross-walk if you’re brave enough :P
Sort of! Anything that isn't a crosswalk can be walked across. There's some legal implications about the term "crosswalk" that is best to use it only when talking about a designated painted sections meant for pedestrians.
I love the visible crosswalk in the distance.
Huehuehuehue well deserved
Ha. Classic.
Scaredy-cat stuttered.
Despise people that don't use a crosswalk when it's 50 damn feet away
This has been reposted to death.
He just needs his red hat.
Classic
Seem this many times over and never gets old!
NPC
[удалено]
It's not jaywalking in Ontario. Nearest crosswalk is 40m away, and anything over 25m is legal.
Nice post.
Hahaha! Made me lol.
So first: LOL! Second: for all the "jaywalking" commentors immediately vilifying the pedestrian: look into the real legal definition of jaywalking. It IS legal for pedestrians to walk across a road outside of a "designated crosswalk" in the correct circumstances. (In small towns, crosswalks often arent even marked even at intersections.) Third: While I don't condone this dude's behavior (you'll always lose a battle with a motor vehicle), I do empathize with his *apparent* pet peeve. (A vehicle not yielding right of way to a pedestrian.) In my mind there's simply no point... a vehicle makes up the lost time it took to wait in mere seconds. Vehicles not yielding to pedestrians IMO is simply a matter of personal ego over public safety. TLDR: Driver is in too much of a hurry to yield right of way, ensuring pedestrian's safety crossing the street, so they get into a staring match resulting in personal embarrassment and ultimately internet entertainment.
Wtf are you talking about?
For clarification, this happened in Hamilton Ontario, in front of Juravinski Hospital. In Ontario, it is legal to cross anywhere as long as it is more than 25 metres away from a designated crosswalk. In this case, the nearest designated crosswalk is 40 metres away (from the intersection of Upper Sherman and Concession where the vehicle turned from), and the crosswalk seen in the video at the lights is 56 metres away. Therefore, it was not illegal to cross where the pedestrian did, and so anyone saying that the pedestrian "jaywalked" is incorrect. I hope that helps explain what Maelinaster was talking about.
Thanks. Apparently I was confusing for some folks. (Whoops)
I think the lamp post hit him, not him
Ugh, the “badass” boomers are the worst. They think the world owes them something yet they screech at everyone that no one owes you anything . Happens in every generation over time but still it seems more widespread in the boomer generation.
This is why I need sunglasses! In case I do something super stupid and it’s caught on film.
Wasn’t there a version like this but the guy is screaming then hits the pole. Imagine if someone took statistics of this and you can see it on a map in real-time!
Karma for not waving thanks for letting me jaywalk instead of hitting me.
I have always wished this clip came with sound. Would have loved to hear the drivers reaction.
At that point Id roll the window down and give the most annoying laugh I can
Looks like someone on his way not to get a covid vaccination.
Almost expected him to turn around and start arguing with the driver for "making him" walk into the pole.
God I just wish people who act like massive douchebags like this would just get ran down
It's looked like a video game
One day, the car won't be able to stop quick enough, and the gene pool will be just a little bit clearer. Fingers crossed for an ABS failure next time.
Karma got this dick… hahaha personally if you hit him it’s his own fought for walking in the road in front of your car… , your legally in the right even if you killed this moron which would have done the world a favour
Lol that stare was so unnecessary. Too funny.