Dear Editor:
In the article “Signs being changed around town” from the Aug. 22 edition, the author seems to support proponents of the new pedestrian law, who claim that the prior law (which mandated motorists to “yield”) was ambiguous and contributed to one of the nation’s highest pedestrian fatality rates. Really? First, “yield” isn’t ambiguous by definition, and does mean “stop” when it’s necessary to give another person (or vehicle) the right of way. This is an education and enforcement issue, which will be little different with the new “stop” law. You think telling people they now have to stop will make a difference? And speaking of contribution to pedestrian fatalities, if one were to talk to state officials about their analysis, you’d hear that pedestrian inattention is a significant factor, along with alcohol. The new provision, which makes a “permissive inference” that the driver “did not exercise due care” if a pedestrian is hit, will be put to the test when the pedestrian is shown to be the real cause of a collision. The same section of law places requirements on the pedestrian as well, and the courts will sort out fault the way they always have – based on the facts. A motorist has to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk until they leave that portion of the crosswalk on their side of the road. Motorists don’t have to wait for the pedestrians to reach the curb on the other side of the road. Lastly, sting operations? I hope that these aren’t necessary in the long term, as I’m sure there are more pressing matters for our law enforcement officials to work on.
John Guzobad