Very glad that no harm came to Rosie (or you), Joe!
Fun piece to read as a fellow pedestrian. My worst experiences as a pedestrian have been while traveling in Texas- once someone nearly clipped me while I was halfway across and I had a walk signal and they had a red light!
On the flip side, I also see people who seem to have never been taught how to cross a street. Hanging back 5 feet from the curb, looking at their phone, the ground, the friend they are still having a conversation with, anywhere but at the direction they intend to go or at drivers….and then being baffled as to why nobody will stop for them.
I am completely sympathetic in this case. I am glad that you expertly described the vehicle as being more than 100 feet from the crosswalk when you entered it. Clearly, based upon your version of the incident (which I don't question) you were in the legal right and the driver was in the legal wrong. The driver, as required by law, was to stop and allow you safe, unfettered crossing - which was your right of way.
I remember watching a PPD sting operation once at the corner of NW 25th and Pettygrove, back in the late 90s, where actors were crossing 25th from curb to island to curb and a handful of traffic police were nabbing every offender who did not stop to give the actor pedestrians right of way. (Or entered the intersection once the pedestrian was out of their lane of traffic, standing on the island - half way across.) The car in front of me was cited.
The whole process fascinated me so much that I stopped to watch and then engaged one of the traffic officers to understand a few key particulars. Naturally, he was too busy with the sting to give my few questions any attention - that was my foolish fault. But, he graciously handed me his portable code book and invited me to look up the law to get my answers. And a few answers were pretty illuminating.
Turns out that drivers are not the only ones held to a failure to yield, so are pedestrians. Oh, yes, pedestrians are not empowered to just blatantly walk into a crosswalk because it's a traffic pattern specific to their needs. Oregon law requires pedestrians to follow safety laws prior to entering into that crosswalk and are to be cited for failure to yield to a vehicle under proscribed conditions. Of course not one pedestrian in one million knows or cares about that because pedestrians do not study these laws, take tests or receive license to walk the streets (and crosswalks) of Oregon.
And now to enlighten all 5 of you who read this comment, here's exactly what ORS 814.040 (2025) says regarding pedestrian failure to yield to a vehicle:
(1) A pedestrian commits the offense of pedestrian failure to yield to a vehicle if the pedestrian does any of the following:
(a) Suddenly leaves a curb or other place of safety and moves into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
(b) Fails to yield the right of way to a vehicle upon a roadway when the pedestrian is crossing the roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
(c) Except as otherwise provided under the vehicle code, fails to yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
(2)
The offense described in this section, pedestrian failure to yield to a vehicle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §555; 1995 c.383 §84]
Here the prohibition is to be based upon "immediate hazard," but in the 90s the code I read specified that pedestrians were not to enter the crosswalk if a moving vehicle was 50 feet or less from same.
So in this scenario, Joe wisely noted that he was 100 feet from that moving vehicle and judged that he was not threatened by any immediate hazard. The 50 feet may make no difference now, the code may have changed. So judging that distance might be irrelevant, particularly since so few pedestrians know 100 feet, 80 feet or 72 feet (or the difference between them) when they see it. Better to simply conclude you are either safe or unsafe based upon the speed of the vehicle approaching. (And that's what the code says now.) Or better, yet, as Joe does here, simply conclude that safety is irrelevant and state law gives him the right of way to enter and expect the driver to stop. Yes, Joe assumed he had the legal advantage.
But, it is an interesting side fact that according to Joe's eye-witness experience, the car never slowed or stopped, which meant that as it approached from 100 feet and Joe chose to find that the vehicle offered no immediate hazard, he stepped into the crosswalk and found that he was not safe. Again, let's be clear: Joe had a right to presume the driver would follow code and stop when seeing a pedestrian step into the crosswalk. But, Joe also made the decision to enter the crosswalk calculating that with the approaching vehicle (at 100 feet away), he was still in no immediate danger, it wasn't a hazard. And yet, it clearly became exactly that. And I do not see where the ORS code specifically states - "no undue hazard because you expect the driver to abide the law and stop." So Joe, sorry to say, did step into the crosswalk, likely not considering the approaching "immediate hazard" correctly. Either he did not calculate the threat at 100 feet correctly or Joe assumed that his right of way would be honored by forcing the driver to stop.
Yeah, as the driver, that might piss me off too. I stop at a lot of crosswalks, the one bridging MAC to it's parking structure is a fine example. Not one in a thousand stop to look at the distance or speed of cars coming toward them, but blatantly step right out, in their God given right to cross with impunity. ORS 814.040 means nothing to them.
Okay, now before I become a villain in this story, let us remember that everything Joe tells us indicates that the driver was paying absolutely no attention, did not see him, was driving under influence, possibly driving recklessly and made no attempt to stop. That is a violation of one or more state laws. But, I honestly do not know that Joe didn't also violate law in his failure to determine there was immediate hazard in stepping into the cross walk. Indeed, there was a hazard in that the vehicle was on-coming and came upon him (not slowing) in near deadly physical contact. Let's be clear here, pedestrians are supposed to obey state law and yield to vehicles when they pose a safety risk. Did Joe really do that? He says so.
And then, just because I rarely see such events a simply black and white extremes, I wonder too, exactly what the crosswalk looked like on that fateful day. And I wonder this because one of my pet peeves is the extraordinary length City parking patrol fails to cite parking violations at intersections (like where crosswalks are located.) In their tunnel vision to only cite over-time parking violations, among the many parking laws they completely ignore is the prohibition of parking at street corners any vehicle standing 6 feet or more in height. That's most vans and pretty much all trucks. And the reason is clear, such vehicles significantly obstruct driver views of that intersection. They cannot see cross traffic emerging and clearly won't see pedestrians and their dogs until they are in the roadway. So the laws are there to protect drivers and pedestrians. But parking patrol ignores that protection entirely. I see prohibited vehicles, usually delivery vehicles of some kind, parked at corners all the time (and adjacent the MAC crosswalk) - and they are not cited and never refrain from taking corner parking spaces regardless of the impact on intersection visibility. I wont' make false accusations in this matter, the driver scofflaw clearly violated laws. But, none of us judging this incident know whether there was legitimate impairment that made the driver unable to see Joe step into that crosswalk. So, while we chose to lay blame in this incident, based upon our biases, lets also blame the unlawfully parked vehicles that impair safe ability to scan the intersection and crosswalk and damn the City of Portland parking patrol for there superb act of nonfeasance in non-performance of their duties to, well in this case, not uphold parking code and keep drivers and pedestrians safe at corner crosswalks and intersections.
The F** You has happened more than once to my wife and myself as we made our way across a well-marked crosswalk on NW 14th. We nearly were hit as a car ran a red light. I would add the scooter speeding down a crowded sidewalk outside the Whole Foods market. that hit my shoulder and kept going. We also bemoan the loss of simple civility. Some denote manners as an unwanted aspect of a patriarchal society that should be abandoned. Perhaps the best we can do is to demonstrate what we expect from others. Perhaps we can even return to an occasional, simple "Good Morning" as we pass one another on a sidewalk.
I'm your vintage I'm guessing, a cyclist and a walker. I work in MX a lot, and find this courtesy and friendliness pretty much everywhere. While ppl don't have issues touching, yielding space is pretty normal- especially to us wiser (read older) ones.
When I return to pdx shortly, I hope to adopt my Rosie. I know rythms will have to adjust to the U.S. speed - always so wierd when I return and reflexively say hello to ppl on the street w/ no reply. I guess what I'm saying is, how groovy would it be to adopt the kindness, pace, and spatial generosity from others. And then of course, there is the "smart" phone....;)
Very glad that no harm came to Rosie (or you), Joe!
Fun piece to read as a fellow pedestrian. My worst experiences as a pedestrian have been while traveling in Texas- once someone nearly clipped me while I was halfway across and I had a walk signal and they had a red light!
On the flip side, I also see people who seem to have never been taught how to cross a street. Hanging back 5 feet from the curb, looking at their phone, the ground, the friend they are still having a conversation with, anywhere but at the direction they intend to go or at drivers….and then being baffled as to why nobody will stop for them.
I am completely sympathetic in this case. I am glad that you expertly described the vehicle as being more than 100 feet from the crosswalk when you entered it. Clearly, based upon your version of the incident (which I don't question) you were in the legal right and the driver was in the legal wrong. The driver, as required by law, was to stop and allow you safe, unfettered crossing - which was your right of way.
I remember watching a PPD sting operation once at the corner of NW 25th and Pettygrove, back in the late 90s, where actors were crossing 25th from curb to island to curb and a handful of traffic police were nabbing every offender who did not stop to give the actor pedestrians right of way. (Or entered the intersection once the pedestrian was out of their lane of traffic, standing on the island - half way across.) The car in front of me was cited.
The whole process fascinated me so much that I stopped to watch and then engaged one of the traffic officers to understand a few key particulars. Naturally, he was too busy with the sting to give my few questions any attention - that was my foolish fault. But, he graciously handed me his portable code book and invited me to look up the law to get my answers. And a few answers were pretty illuminating.
Turns out that drivers are not the only ones held to a failure to yield, so are pedestrians. Oh, yes, pedestrians are not empowered to just blatantly walk into a crosswalk because it's a traffic pattern specific to their needs. Oregon law requires pedestrians to follow safety laws prior to entering into that crosswalk and are to be cited for failure to yield to a vehicle under proscribed conditions. Of course not one pedestrian in one million knows or cares about that because pedestrians do not study these laws, take tests or receive license to walk the streets (and crosswalks) of Oregon.
And now to enlighten all 5 of you who read this comment, here's exactly what ORS 814.040 (2025) says regarding pedestrian failure to yield to a vehicle:
(1) A pedestrian commits the offense of pedestrian failure to yield to a vehicle if the pedestrian does any of the following:
(a) Suddenly leaves a curb or other place of safety and moves into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard.
(b) Fails to yield the right of way to a vehicle upon a roadway when the pedestrian is crossing the roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.
(c) Except as otherwise provided under the vehicle code, fails to yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway.
(2)
The offense described in this section, pedestrian failure to yield to a vehicle, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §555; 1995 c.383 §84]
Here the prohibition is to be based upon "immediate hazard," but in the 90s the code I read specified that pedestrians were not to enter the crosswalk if a moving vehicle was 50 feet or less from same.
So in this scenario, Joe wisely noted that he was 100 feet from that moving vehicle and judged that he was not threatened by any immediate hazard. The 50 feet may make no difference now, the code may have changed. So judging that distance might be irrelevant, particularly since so few pedestrians know 100 feet, 80 feet or 72 feet (or the difference between them) when they see it. Better to simply conclude you are either safe or unsafe based upon the speed of the vehicle approaching. (And that's what the code says now.) Or better, yet, as Joe does here, simply conclude that safety is irrelevant and state law gives him the right of way to enter and expect the driver to stop. Yes, Joe assumed he had the legal advantage.
But, it is an interesting side fact that according to Joe's eye-witness experience, the car never slowed or stopped, which meant that as it approached from 100 feet and Joe chose to find that the vehicle offered no immediate hazard, he stepped into the crosswalk and found that he was not safe. Again, let's be clear: Joe had a right to presume the driver would follow code and stop when seeing a pedestrian step into the crosswalk. But, Joe also made the decision to enter the crosswalk calculating that with the approaching vehicle (at 100 feet away), he was still in no immediate danger, it wasn't a hazard. And yet, it clearly became exactly that. And I do not see where the ORS code specifically states - "no undue hazard because you expect the driver to abide the law and stop." So Joe, sorry to say, did step into the crosswalk, likely not considering the approaching "immediate hazard" correctly. Either he did not calculate the threat at 100 feet correctly or Joe assumed that his right of way would be honored by forcing the driver to stop.
Yeah, as the driver, that might piss me off too. I stop at a lot of crosswalks, the one bridging MAC to it's parking structure is a fine example. Not one in a thousand stop to look at the distance or speed of cars coming toward them, but blatantly step right out, in their God given right to cross with impunity. ORS 814.040 means nothing to them.
Okay, now before I become a villain in this story, let us remember that everything Joe tells us indicates that the driver was paying absolutely no attention, did not see him, was driving under influence, possibly driving recklessly and made no attempt to stop. That is a violation of one or more state laws. But, I honestly do not know that Joe didn't also violate law in his failure to determine there was immediate hazard in stepping into the cross walk. Indeed, there was a hazard in that the vehicle was on-coming and came upon him (not slowing) in near deadly physical contact. Let's be clear here, pedestrians are supposed to obey state law and yield to vehicles when they pose a safety risk. Did Joe really do that? He says so.
And then, just because I rarely see such events a simply black and white extremes, I wonder too, exactly what the crosswalk looked like on that fateful day. And I wonder this because one of my pet peeves is the extraordinary length City parking patrol fails to cite parking violations at intersections (like where crosswalks are located.) In their tunnel vision to only cite over-time parking violations, among the many parking laws they completely ignore is the prohibition of parking at street corners any vehicle standing 6 feet or more in height. That's most vans and pretty much all trucks. And the reason is clear, such vehicles significantly obstruct driver views of that intersection. They cannot see cross traffic emerging and clearly won't see pedestrians and their dogs until they are in the roadway. So the laws are there to protect drivers and pedestrians. But parking patrol ignores that protection entirely. I see prohibited vehicles, usually delivery vehicles of some kind, parked at corners all the time (and adjacent the MAC crosswalk) - and they are not cited and never refrain from taking corner parking spaces regardless of the impact on intersection visibility. I wont' make false accusations in this matter, the driver scofflaw clearly violated laws. But, none of us judging this incident know whether there was legitimate impairment that made the driver unable to see Joe step into that crosswalk. So, while we chose to lay blame in this incident, based upon our biases, lets also blame the unlawfully parked vehicles that impair safe ability to scan the intersection and crosswalk and damn the City of Portland parking patrol for there superb act of nonfeasance in non-performance of their duties to, well in this case, not uphold parking code and keep drivers and pedestrians safe at corner crosswalks and intersections.
The F** You has happened more than once to my wife and myself as we made our way across a well-marked crosswalk on NW 14th. We nearly were hit as a car ran a red light. I would add the scooter speeding down a crowded sidewalk outside the Whole Foods market. that hit my shoulder and kept going. We also bemoan the loss of simple civility. Some denote manners as an unwanted aspect of a patriarchal society that should be abandoned. Perhaps the best we can do is to demonstrate what we expect from others. Perhaps we can even return to an occasional, simple "Good Morning" as we pass one another on a sidewalk.
Patriarchal society. Gendered / learned behaviors. Interesting and researched for it's accuracy and relevance.
Thank you, Joe. Just what an essay should be: relevant, interesting, and humorous.
Hey Joe (as Jimmi would say),
I'm your vintage I'm guessing, a cyclist and a walker. I work in MX a lot, and find this courtesy and friendliness pretty much everywhere. While ppl don't have issues touching, yielding space is pretty normal- especially to us wiser (read older) ones.
When I return to pdx shortly, I hope to adopt my Rosie. I know rythms will have to adjust to the U.S. speed - always so wierd when I return and reflexively say hello to ppl on the street w/ no reply. I guess what I'm saying is, how groovy would it be to adopt the kindness, pace, and spatial generosity from others. And then of course, there is the "smart" phone....;)