Comment 88707

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted May 13, 2013 at 23:10:46

I'm not sure I follow your logic here:

"(b) any portion of a roadway at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs or by lines or other markings on the surface;

In other words, any intersection of two streets, whether marked or not, is a legal crosswalk unless crossing is explicitly prohibited."

You seem to be reading (b) to say that a crosswalk is any portion of a roadway at an intersection, or elsewhere distinctly indicated (note the placement of the comma).

Personally, in the absence of a comma in the legislation, I would read (b) to say a crosswalk is any portion of the roadway distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing (whether at an intersection or elsewhere).

I certainly don't agree with the City that painting lines affords no protection, in fact the act seems to explicitly state otherwise. But I'm not sure I would interpret the HTA the same way you have.

Do you happen to know if there is jurisprudence supporting either your interpretation or mine? The structure of the sentence does not make its meaning entirely clear.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds