Yep, if I had to choose my life or theirs. I'd choose mine of course.
Then again, he's probably a better man than me
Sent from my tablet using my paws
|
|
|
Jaywalking vs Vehicle
- Thread starter gptt916
- Start date
Yep, if I had to choose my life or theirs. I'd choose mine of course.
Then again, he's probably a better man than me
Sent from my tablet using my paws
Firstly, can you define what you mean by "J-walking"? It's a very misused term and only really applies to a very specific case.
They were blatantly crossing the street, not using a crosswalk, not even remotely close to one, without checking on coming traffic.
That's not J-walking. J-walking is when, for example, someone crosses the street to get from the north east corner to the south west corner, without coming in contact with either the north west or south east corners. In other words you start crossing one street and then turn and cross the other, without ever completing the first crossing; taking a J shaped path.
That's why I asked.
Well, google returned this: "
- cross or walk in the street or road unlawfully or without regard for approaching traffic."
As I said, the term J-walking is very specific and frequently misused. It is now frequently used to describe any illegal crossing of the street, when the term clearly came from a specific sort of illegal behaviour.
Actually.... http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/07/origin-of-the-term-jaywalking/
Contrary to popular belief, the term jaywalking does not derive from the shape of the letter “J” (referencing the path a jaywalker might travel when crossing a road). Rather, it comes from the fact that “Jay” used to be a generic term for someone who was an idiot, dull, rube, unsophisticated, poor, or simpleton. More precisely, it was once a common term for “country bumpkins” or “hicks”, usually seen incorrectly as inherently stupid by “city” folk.
Thanks but I'll stick with what I've known since 1968, rather than some random internet page 
Thanks but I'll stick with what I've known since 1968, rather than some random internet page
haha thats fine, at least we know what exactly happened in my case there.
Thanks but I'll stick with what I've known since 1968, rather than some random internet page
Yea GPT is right the term doesn't describe the shape but that was a common interpretation in the 60' and 70's. Jay did indeed means inexperienced and later became a synonym for idiot. Term became popular in campaigns by automobile clubs arguing that streets should be for cars only incited of the mix pedestrian and automobile traffic.
It basically means idiot walker.
Jimsun
Well-known member
This is an interesting topic. Im subscribing in the event it developed further. These scenarios are tricky.
I knew of a coworker who had to hit a car in front him because the car moved to his lane at such a slow speed (he was moving with the flow of traffic and not speeding). He told me he either hit a biker on his right, head on collision on his left or rear end the car at 80kmh. He chose the later and was found 0% at fault.
I knew of a coworker who had to hit a car in front him because the car moved to his lane at such a slow speed (he was moving with the flow of traffic and not speeding). He told me he either hit a biker on his right, head on collision on his left or rear end the car at 80kmh. He chose the later and was found 0% at fault.
In this case was your coworker able to provide proof? Did the car that merged into his lane stay/pull over after the incident?
Jimsun
Well-known member
cars were not drivable afterwards. The bike was his witness. The car turned right into the inside lane instead of the outside lane. My coworker said that its maybe because there was a parked car not far after in the outside lane.
I was also in a case where i almost had no choice but to get into a head on collision with a minivan that attempted to make a left turn on a green. Luckily the car on my right made a right turn at the intersection giving me room for reaction. Had the car on my right not make a left and i would have tboned the ***** who had one hand on her earhole. Sun was a factor so thats maybe why she didnt see us.
I was also in a case where i almost had no choice but to get into a head on collision with a minivan that attempted to make a left turn on a green. Luckily the car on my right made a right turn at the intersection giving me room for reaction. Had the car on my right not make a left and i would have tboned the ***** who had one hand on her earhole. Sun was a factor so thats maybe why she didnt see us.
This scenario is covered under the fault determination rules in the Insurance Act.
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900668_e.htm
Rules for Automobiles Travelling in the Same Direction in Adjacent Lane
(4) If the incident occurs when automobile “B” is changing lanes, the driver of automobile “A” is not at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is 100 per cent at fault for the incident.
MarcosSantiago
Well-known member
A friend a co-worker got a jaywalking ticket a few years ago when Toronto police had the blitz downtown. $50. I told him to fight it, he just paid for it.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/01/27/police_crack_down_on_downtown_jaywalkers.html
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/01/27/police_crack_down_on_downtown_jaywalkers.html
kiwi
Well-known member
I don't think the speed on the dash cam can be proven in Court easily.. You would have to get some person to prove the dash cam was accurate would you not?
|
|
|
|
|