"If a driver is breaking the law by running a yellow light and hits a pedestrian, the police should seriously investigate whether the driver should face charges more serious than simply a ticket for running a light."

No!

***If a driver hits a pedestrian, the police should seriously investigate whether the driver should face charges.***

It does not matter whatsoever, who had the green or red lights. Those are only secondary facts. Even if the driver had a green light and the pedestrians was jaywalking, there is no way that the driver had some "right" to hit the pedestrian.

The most important thing in traffic is that you behave *safely* and that you are prepared for others *not* behaving safely.

by Jasper on Feb 4, 2009 11:18 am • link • report

Not to be a jerk, but aren't cars supposed to be able to go through yellow lights? Otherwise, how do you know where the boundary is between when you can travel through the light on a green and when you can't on a red?

Perhaps the driver was just going through the yellow too fast. That would make sense.

Shouldn't the driver be facing penalties for failure to yield or endangerment or something? I don't know my vehicle code too well, obviously.

by Michael Perkins on Feb 4, 2009 11:20 am • link • report

is running the yellow illegal in DC? it doesn't appear to be:

According to 18 D.C. Mun. Regs. Ch. 21 § 2103.5(b), a yellow light has the following meaning: Vehicular traffic shall top before entering the nearest crosswalk of the intersection, unless so close to the intersection that a stop cannot safely be made.

i used to live one building up from that intersection on conn. - it's an evil thing. but having more details on the event would be helpful.

by jenny on Feb 4, 2009 11:24 am • link • report

This is borderline ridiculous. Obviously a driver doesn't have a "right" to hit a pedestrian, but they're also not breaking the law by driving through a yellow light. I'm a pedestrian 10x more than I'm a driver--and living in Rosslyn, I see a lot of people do both poorly--but I'm not stupid enough to walk across a Wilson Blvd. or Connecticut Ave. when the light is still changing.

by PJ on Feb 4, 2009 11:26 am • link • report

Sounds like the pedestrian left early and was jaywalking. He/she should have been cited. It's perfectly acceptable to go through a yellow light.

by SG on Feb 4, 2009 11:26 am • link • report

Not gonna lie; I almost hit a pedestrian last night. I was planning on running a red light (15th and P) to save time, and as I cut around a bus and drove up the left lane, she came out of nowhere. I slammed on my brakes and stopped about two inches away from her. Pretty Scary. I definitely learned my lesson.

I was on a bicycle, though...

by anonymous on Feb 4, 2009 11:27 am • link • report

Maybe hold off on casting blame before the facts come in, it sounds like either or both could be at fault.

And Comet Corner? Seriously? Are we naming every intersection after the nearest crappy pizza place?

by Sir Spicious on Feb 4, 2009 12:54 pm • link • report

@anonymous 11:27 am i'm pretty sure that was me - it's not so much that i came out of nowhere; i was just walking in the crossswalk with the light in my favor. i don't want to berate you, but more than the fact that you could've bumped me is the danger that the bus would've pulled back into the lane and into you....

by jaime on Feb 4, 2009 1:12 pm • link • report

@ PJ: You are missing my point. It is not relevant whether someone broke the law when they hit someone. Whenever there is a crash, at least one of the two parties did not participate safely in traffic.

Even if you light is green, you have the right of way, has proper lighting, and you are sober, you can still be totally at fault when you hit a jaywalking, drunk in black clothes.

There was a pedestrian hit. The police should investigate.

by Jasper on Feb 4, 2009 2:24 pm • link • report

If a pedestrian is hit by a car, it is *always* the pedestrian's fault. Pedestrians are more agile and maneuverable than cars. Also, you may be right but you will be just as dead.

We need to get those scofflaw bicyclists under control.

by ibc on Feb 4, 2009 2:30 pm • link • report

Brief history of autos in urban America:

1) Take over the streets with deadly vehicles; 2) kill a bunch of folks through negligence and haste; 3) get a bunch of laws passed--heavily tilted towards the rights of auto drivers--to marginalize all non-auto traffic, so that autos don't kill quite so many people; 4) kill and maim with impunity, so long as traffic signals are (generally) obeyed.

They should paint over the crosswalks, lower the speed limit to 10 mph, and impose a mandatory 5 year license revocation on anyone operating a vehicle that strikes a pedestrian.

by ibc on Feb 4, 2009 2:39 pm • link • report

I can't tell if ibc is being sarcastic or not, but I will tell you that scofflaw is a great word to use to describe drivers too.

also, jaime, around 10:15 last night? If so, totally possible it was you, and I'm really sorry for that, I was coming from Bethesda and it was a long, cold ride. I know, I know, there is no excuse for being a scofflaw, but I'm glad I had the opportunity to make e-amends (what are the odds?)

by anonymous on Feb 4, 2009 3:56 pm • link • report

@ anonymous huh, my near-bump happened around 6pm. i hear where you're coming from since i often bike around town. i'm pretty sure you get all your karma points back from trying to make amends ;)

by jaime on Feb 4, 2009 4:02 pm • link • report

Is it just me or is there an unbalanced italics tag at the end of this post?

by Steve on Feb 4, 2009 8:46 pm • link • report

Fixed, thanks.

by David Alpert on Feb 5, 2009 12:12 am • link • report

To the author, Mr. Alpert - may I inquire as to how you received the information about the condition of the woman? I replied to the other post on this topic, and as stated there I was one of the 2 witnesses of this accident.

Thanks

by Witness 1 on Feb 5, 2009 8:49 am • link • report