NOVA SCOTIA CANADA-
Protecting pedestrians
I am a walker.
Ever since my wife and I sold our house in the suburbs two years ago, and moved downtown, I walk everywhere. I walk to work, to get our groceries, to movies and restaurants. So, whenever we report on yet another pedestrian struck in a crosswalk or intersection, it gets my attention.
Over the past week we've reported on several, including one fatality - a 34 year old man struck and killed in a crosswalk in Lower Sackville.
When we report these stories neighbours often demand steps to make the crosswalk safer, install flashing lights, or more enforcement, but there's rarely a discussion about the penalties for the driver of the vehicle.
The charge under the Motor Vehicle Act is "failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk". The maximum penalty is a fine of $687.41
Think about that.
If you're driving and are distracted by checking your text messages, or fiddling with your Ipod, or yakking with your passenger, or you're simply hellbent on getting to your destination as quickly as possible, and you hit and kill a pedestrian, the price you pay is equivalent to the cost of a middle-of-the-line flat screen TV.
Now compare that to "stunting" - the charge laid for driving more than 50km per hour over the speed limit.
Consider this scenario: A driver is going 161 km per hour on Highway 104. It's a clear day, the pavement is dry, the traffic is light. There is no accident, no one is killed or injured.
As soon as the driver is pulled over they face an immediate suspension of their licence for a minimum of one week and their vehicle is impounded. Upon conviction they face a fine of $2,412.41 and an automatic six points penalty on their driving record.
For some reason, our lawmakers have determined there should be harsher penalties for excessive speeding than for striking a pedestrian in a crosswalk.
So here's some advice from a full-time walker.
When you approach an intersection or crosswalk ALWAYS assume the driver is distracted and doesn't see you. Even if the crosswalk lights are flashing, don't step out until you are sure the driver is paying attention and preparing to stop.
When you approach an intersection or crosswalk ALWAYS assume the driver is distracted and doesn't see you. Even if the crosswalk lights are flashing, don't step out until you are sure the driver is paying attention and preparing to stop.
I know pedestrians have the "right of way", but being right is little solace when you are lying in a morgue.
----------------
CANADA-
Road deaths no pedestrian
matter
How many pedestrian deaths in Toronto will there need to be
before we recognize there’s a serious problem. Since 2009 there has been well
over 200 people killed by cars in Toronto, which is far more than Canadian
soldiers who lost their lives during the entire war in Afghanistan.
No one seems to be standing up for pedestrians. For workplace
safety we have public advocacy groups and government agencies and yet
pedestrians deaths far outnumber workplace deaths.
My impression is that the public, which predominantly consists
of car drivers, generally believes the deaths are usually the fault of
pedestrians themselves, or at least drivers who were drinking. The blame is
never the result of drivers who simply break the basic safety rules of driving.
As a pedestrian I have nearly been hit several times; in one
case I had to lift myself on to the hood of a car to escape being run over. In
all cases I was crossing the street legally.
I still see numerous drivers texting, I see hazardous U-turns
daily, I see cars narrowly missing people at crosswalks when they should not
even be entering with people crossing, among many other violations. Police are
clearly not giving out tickets for any of this.
Yes, pedestrians break the rules, but when they do they’ll pay
the price. When drivers break the rules and kill pedestrians the courts give
little or no punishment. Until someone gets serious prison time for killing
when their texting or making a U-turn, the courts don’t care.
But we need more than that. We need much harsher penalties for
unsafe driving. It isn’t the drunk driver, or sociopathic, reckless driver who
is killing. It’s the person texting. Until we stop those people, many more will
die.
Douglas Blackwell, Toronto
------------------
Pedestrian accidents
This page discusses
assessment of fault in accidents involving pedestrians.
Crosswalks need not be
“marked” for the pedestrian to have the right of way
According to the definition
of “crosswalk” in the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996 c. 318 there need not be
road markings or pedestrian traffic lights for there to be a cross walk at an
intersection:
"crosswalk" means
(a) a portion of the roadway
at an intersection or elsewhere distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by
signs or by lines or other markings on the surface, or
(b) the portion of a highway
at an intersection that is included within the connection of the lateral lines
of the sidewalks on the opposite sides of the highway, or within the extension
of the lateral lines of the sidewalk on one side of the highway, measured from
the curbs, or in the absence of curbs, from the edges of the roadway;
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC
1996 c. 318, s. 119(1)).
Part (b) of the above
definition indicates that the portion of the roadway that is an extension of
the sidewalk will be considered a crosswalk even if there are no markings on
the road. In other words, if you are walking parallel to the road and along a
sidewalk and come to an intersection, so long as you continue walking straight
you will be in a crosswalk as you cross the road.
Note that that in order to
be an official sidewalk the walking area on the side of the road must have been
specifically constructed for pedestrians. The Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996 c.
318 includes the following definition for “sidewalk”:
"sidewalk" means
the area between the curb lines or lateral lines of a roadway and the adjacent
property lines improved for the use of pedestrians.
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC
1996 c. 318, s. 119(1)).
Pedestrian have the right of
way when in a crosswalk
Section 179(1) of the Motor
Vehicle Act, RSBC, 1996, c. 318 states that pedestrians have the right of way
when in a crosswalk:
Subject to section 180, the
driver of a vehicle must yield the right of way to a pedestrian where traffic
control signals are not in place or not in operation when the pedestrian is
crossing the highway in a crosswalk and the pedestrian is on the half of the
highway on which the vehicle is travelling, or is approaching so closely from
the other half of the highway that he or she is in danger.
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC,
1996, c. 318, s. 179(1)).
Section 180 provides that
pedestrians do not have the right of way when not in a crosswalk:
When a pedestrian is
crossing a highway at a point not in a crosswalk, the pedestrian must yield the
right of way to a vehicle.
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC,
1996, c. 318, s. 180).
However, regardless of
whether they are in a crosswalk or not, pedestrians, must not step into the
roadway into the path of a vehicle that could not reasonably be expected to
stop in time:
A pedestrian must not leave
a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that
is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way.
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC,
1996, c. 318, s. 179(2)).
The Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC,
1996, c. 318 also states that drivers must exercise common sense and take
reasonable care to avoid pedestrians:
Despite sections 178, 179
and 180, a driver of a vehicle must:
(a) exercise due care to
avoid colliding with a pedestrian who is on the highway,
(b) give warning by sounding
the horn of the vehicle when necessary, and
(c) observe proper
precaution on observing a child or apparently confused or incapacitated person
on the highway.
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC,
1996, c. 318, s. 818).
Absent unusual behaviour,
pedestrians established in a crosswalk will not likely be found contributorily
negligent:
[O]nce a pedestrian has
safely entered a crosswalk, absent any overt negligence such as running or
gesturing that could mislead motorists into thinking they may proceed safely,
the pedestrian may assume that the motorists will yield the right-of-way and
will share no responsibility if struck in the crosswalk.
(Miksch v. Hambleton, 1990
CanLII 177 (BCSC)).
Cases considering pedestrians
in crosswalks
Pedestrians have the right
of way when a pedestrian traffic control signal is green:
132(1) When the word
"walk" or an outline of a walking person is exhibited at an
intersection by a pedestrian traffic control signal, a pedestrian may proceed
across the roadway in the direction of the signal in a marked or unmarked
crosswalk and has the right of way over all vehicles in the intersection or any
adjacent crosswalk.
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC
1996 c. 318, s. 132).
Drivers must look out for
pedestrians in the crosswalk regardless of whether or not the walk sign is on:
In dark, rainy situations,
especially on streets where there is known to have considerable pedestrian
traffic, Mr. Nix turned left onto Thurlow without paying attention to whether
there were pedestrians in the crosswalk or not. While Mr. Nix may have been
paying more attention to whether the “walk” or the “wait” pedestrian sign was
illuminated rather than whether there were pedestrians in the crosswalk,
drivers in similar circumstances must make themselves aware of whether there
are pedestrians in the crosswalk, whether or not the “wait” or the “walk”
pedestrian sign is illuminated.
This is the case because a
pedestrian can step into the crosswalk when the “walk” sign is illuminated but
still be in the crosswalk while the “wait” pedestrian sign becomes illuminated.
As well and although I do not find that to be the case here, it is common for
pedestrians to enter crosswalks even though the “wait” pedestrian sign is illuminated.
In those circumstances, drivers must be aware of the increased but unfortunate
trend of pedestrians to enter crosswalks without regard to whether the “walk”
or “wait” pedestrian signs are illuminated. While pedestrians in those
circumstances may well be partially to blame for accidents, I find that such is
not the case here.
(Achilleos v. Nix &
Vancouver Taxi, 2000 BCSC 1422 at paras. 18 - 19).
Pedestrians in a crosswalk
on a green light are not required to wear bright clothing, even on a dark and
rainy night:
Mr. Nix is 100% liable for
the accident which occurred. Ms. Achilleos in no way contributed to causing the
accident by wearing dark clothes on that dark January evening. Pedestrians in
crosswalks who are proceeding when the “walk” pedestrian sign is illuminated
are free to wear whatever colour clothes they feel are appropriate. This is not
a case where the lack of lighting and bad weather conditions created a
situation where the wearing of dark clothes in any way contributed to causing
the accident.
(Achilleos v. Nix &
Vancouver Taxi, 2000 BCSC 1422 at para. 20).
Pedestrians have the right
of way once they are established in a crosswalk:
The Supreme Court of Canada
has held in two decisions, Petijevich v. Law (1968) 1 D.L.R. (3d) 690, and Coso
v. Poulos, (1969) 69 W.W.R. 38, on facts close to those in the case at bar and
upon a construction of the same relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act,
s-ss. 181 (1) and (2), that once a pedestrian has safely entered a crosswalk,
absent any overt negligence such as running or gesturing that could mislead
motorists into thinking they may proceed safely, the pedestrian may assume that
the motorists will yield the right-of-way and will share no responsibility if
struck in the crosswalk.
(Miksch v. Hambleton, 1990
CanLII 177 (BCSC)).
Similarly:
As I appreciate the result
of those cases, it is that where, as here, a pedestrian has lawfully entered a
cross-walk, giving him or her the right-of-way, then while that pedestrian is
not entitled to make a sudden stop, or accelerate and run, so as to create an
unexpected and unavoidable hazard, nevertheless if the pedestrian proceeds at a
normal and proper pace, in circumstances where the driver has or should have
ample opportunity to see him or her and avoid a collision, then the pedestrian
proceeding in that manner, even although he or she may see or ought to have
seen approaching traffic, is entitled to assume that such traffic will observe
its duty to yield the right-of-way, and the pedestrian is not negligent in
proceeding accordingly.
(Cerra v. Bragg, [1980] BCJ
No 536 (SC)).
Pedestrians NOT in a
crosswalk
As noted above, a pedestrian
does not have the right of way if crossing a road NOT in a crosswalk. In such
circumstances a driver’s obligation to take evasive action arises only when he
or she becomes aware or ought to have become aware that the pedestrian is not
going to obey the law: Ibaraki v. Bamford, 1996 CanLII 1814 (BCSC).
In Addison v. Nelles, 2004
BCCA 623 the defendant driver struck a pedestrian who was not in a crosswalk.
The plaintiff was wearing a grey sweatshirt, black track pants and white
running shoes. The conditions were cloudy and dark with intermittent light rain
and the plaintiff and defendant did not see each other until the moment of
impact. The trial judge held that since the plaintiff was not in a crosswalk
she did not have the right of way, and that the driver could not reasonably
have been expected to see the plaintiff in the circumstances. The plaintiff’s
relatively dark clothing was one of several factors that the trial judge
considered in concluding that the defendant had not failed to keep a proper
lookout. The court found that the plaintiff was moving quickly, that the
defendant was not speeding, and that the defendant driver could not be faulted
for not seeing the plaintiff earlier.
Duty on pedestrians to look
out for their own safety
Pedestrians must not step
into the roadway into the path of a vehicle that could not reasonably be
expected to stop in time:
A pedestrian must not leave
a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that
is so close it is impracticable for the driver to yield the right of way.
(Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC,
1996, c. 318, s. 179(2)).
Pedestrians will generally
be entirely at fault for an accident if they are not in a crosswalk and step
into the roadway in front of a vehicle
There is no obligation on a
driver to travel below the speed limit to meet unforeseeable emergencies such
as a pedestrian who is so careless as to step off a curb directly in front of
an oncoming car. Ms. Ibaraki did not present evidence to establish what speed
would have avoided the accident. The law does not cast is burden on a driver to
travel at the slower speed merely because the road conditions are wet. Ms.
Bamford had her vehicle under sufficient control to bring it to a stop quickly
after she struck Ms. Ibaraki.
(Ibaraki v. Bamford, 1996
CanLII 1814 at para. 13 (BCSC)).
Pedestrians are required to
look out for their own safety even when crossing in a crosswalk. In Bell v.
Thorner, 2009 BCSC 44 a pedestrian who did not look out for his own safety was
found 50% at fault when struck while crossing in an unmarked crosswalk:
The plaintiff has not
satisfactorily explained why he did not see an approaching vehicle with its
headlights illuminated that was there to be seen. It was a dark rainy night. He
was dressed in dark clothing. He was crossing a through street at an unmarked
uncontrolled intersection. A bus had just passed in front of him, indicating
the presence of traffic. Mr. Bell left a place of safety and stepped out into
the unmarked crosswalk at the intersection, wearing dark clothing on a dark
rainy night, without checking adequately or at all to see that there was no
oncoming traffic from his left. There is no other available conclusion, given
that the Thorner vehicle, headlights on, was there to be seen, approaching on
the roadway. Mr. Bell should have been aware that it would be difficult for a
driver on such a night to see a person dressed in dark clothing. It seems
obvious that he did not take reasonable care for his own safety. I find that Mr.
Bell was contributorily negligent.
(Bell v. Thorner, 2009 BCSC
44 at para. 36).
Other cases support the
imposition of some duty on a pedestrian even when in a cross-walk:
There is a general duty on a
pedestrian to act constantly and consistently with due care for his or her own
safety when crossing a busy highway, even in a marked crosswalk.
(Loewen v. Bernardi, 1994
CanLII 1147 at para. 15 (BCCA)).
Similarly:
The reason he gave for not
[yielding the right of way] was because he did not see her soon enough and he
did not see her sooner because the lighting conditions at the intersection in
question were such that the crosswalk area was a blind area to him as he came
from the north. His duty in those circumstances was to enter the intersection at
such a speed and keeping such a look-out that if a pedestrian should be in the
crosswalk he would be able to yield the right-of-way to that pedestrian.
(Petijevich v. Law, [1969]
SCR 257 at 264).
Young or elderly pedestrians
are less likely to be found contributorily negligent:
[W]ith respect to the
pedestrian, there is authority for the proposition that very young and very old
pedestrians are naturally inclined to be more oblivious to the dangers and
risks of traffic and when caught in it are predisposed to act impulsively and
in some confusion and panic. This predisposition of the young and the elderly
is not in itself to be treated as answerable fault and allowance ought to be
made for it. In this case the pedestrian is elderly and this characteristic
ought to temper the degree of his contributory fault.
(Loewen v. Bernardi, 1994
CanLII 1147 at para. 17 (BCCA))
However, in Krause v.
McFall, 1997 CanLII 1834 (BCSC) an 84 year old woman struck by a bus was found
50% liable for not keeping a better lookout. The pedestrian left the curb when
the “walk” sign was displayed and had her head down as she proceeded with her
“quad” walker. The bus had stopped to wait for pedestrians to cross, but then
proceeded at 4 miles per hour after thinking that all pedestrians had passed.
The plaintiff struck the side of the bus 2-3 ft. behind the front wheel. The
driver was not aware of striking the plaintiff until he heard another person
banging on the side of the bus, and conceded that he may have been paying more
attention to whether the rear of the bus was clearing the curb as he proceeded.
The court found the driver and the plaintiff each 50% liable:
As she entered the crosswalk
on the "Walk" signal, s. 132(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, RSBC 1996,
c. 318 grants her the right of way over all vehicles.
Having that right of way,
however, did not relieve the plaintiff from the obligation of exercising a
degree of care for her own safety. In my opinion she did not exercise the
degree of care which she should have in the circumstances.
Even though her infirmity in
walking necessitated her looking down as she proceeded, it still was incumbent
upon her to look up and observe the general traffic situation to ensure that
she could proceed safely. She was aware, I find, that the bus from which she
had alighted would be making a right hand turn onto Douglas Street since the
fact that the bus was going to proceed in a southerly direction was what
required her to alight from it and to cross eastward across Douglas Street to
catch a bus proceeding in that direction. Had she looked up, as I find she
should have done, she would have seen the McFall bus and been able to take
steps to avoid walking into the side of it, as I find she did; in failing to do
so she was negligent.
As to the defendant McFall,
as the plaintiff had entered the crosswalk on the "Walk" sign it was
incumbent upon him to yield the right of way to her. He failed to do so and
hence was also negligent.
In the circumstances of this
case I consider that the provisions of s. 1(2) of the Negligence Act, RSBC
1996, c. 333 apply and that fault should be apportioned 50 percent to each
party.
(Krause v. McFall, 1997
CanLII 1834 at paras. 20 – 24 (BCSC)).
-------------
General principles that apply to the
assessment of fault
This portion of the website discusses basic principles regarding
assessment of fault that apply in most accident situations.
Navigate this portion of the website by clicking on a
menu item in the expanding menu on the left side of this page, or select a link
below.
-------------------
“Everyone is born a
pedestrian” campaign in Hungary
ARCHIVED
By Editor / Updated: 22 May
2015
A recent campaign in Hungary
promotes co-operation on the roads – mostly in favour of walkers. The
promotional activities, including posters, stickers and online surveys, reaches
as many people as possible.
Background & Objectives
Resources for infrastructure
developments are restricted, so alternative solutions must be sought –
preferably ones that ease activities of daily life the most. Transport is a
game played by millions every day. We can enjoy this game, but if the rules are
not respected, it can turn into a “Run for your life!” nightmare.
Police figures indicate that
23% of walking accidents happen on road crossings. A police spokesperson
emphasised that social co-operation is needed, and also that shared
responsibility amongst all who have a role in the improvement of road safety is
essential.
The initiative started in
Veszprém City in 2011, where car drivers were encouraged to pay more attention
at pedestrian crossings. The success of that initiative motivated the Ministry
to enlarge the campaign to a national level.
Implementation
In March 2012 a comprehensive
campaign was launched by the Hungarian Ministry of Public Administration and
Justice for enhancing partnership between car drivers, pedestrians and
cyclists.
The police were involved as
they have a vested interest in road safety. Budapest Transport Centre
(Budapesti Közlekedési Központ, BKK) also joined, as one of their aims is to
return the junctions of the capital to pedestrians. In the 1970s a transport
policy evolved which made transport "automotive". Junctions were
redesigned so that only cars could pass safely. Now Budapest Transport Centre
aims to bring back zebra crossings.
When the campaign was
launched, a common press conference was organised, at which the president of
the Hungarian Biker’s Club emphasised the importance of partnership among all
stakeholders in transport. As he argued, partnership on its own is not enough,
proper infrastructure is also needed - and vice versa.
The main hub of the campaign
is the homepage where on an interactive map people can indicate places that car
drivers, pedestrians or cyclists feel unsafe. The results will be analysed by
the Budapest Transport Centre.
Another aspect of the
campaign is the sticker game. The "Everyone is a pedestrian" sticker
has to be displayed and photographed. The photo which subsequently gains the
most "likes" on Facebook wins one of many valuable prizes, including
an adventure trip to the Alps. Stickers are available at Agip petrol stations,
cafés and shops.
Conclusions
The campaign cost about
190,000 euros. Interestingly, Budapest Municipality pays about ten times this
amount for road reconstructions annually. From now on, the interests of all
modes will be examined and suggestions from residents will also be taken into
consideration. The posters, which not only refer to the co-operation of the
different modes of transport but also to the three colours of the traffic
lights, are displayed in high numbers around the country – vivid colours are
particularly visible in the late winter landscape.
Professionals know that the
effects of preventive campaigns are hard to calculate. However this campaign
was hailed by all stakeholders – maybe because the co-operation among transport
actors is reflected in the co-operation of the organisers of the campaign. The
homepage is extremely popular; during the first week of the campaign alone some
8000 dangerous road crossings were identified.
The campaign involves
Police, Budapest Transport Centre, Hungarian Biker’s Club, National Committee
for Accident Prevention, the civil organization “Critical Mothers”, the
National Institute for the Blind, the School of the Blind, and the Budapest
Association of Disabled People. Agip petrol stations, and certain cafés and
shops (listed on the homepage) also participated in the distribution of the "Everyone
is a pedestrian" stickers. The executive sponsor of the game is Volvo.
Topic:
Mobility management
Contact:
Miklos Marton
Contact:
Miklós Marton
Country:
Hungary
City:
Budapest
Author:
Miklos Marton
Keywords:
measures - awareness raising
First published: 10 Jul 2012
Latest revision: 22 May 2015
- See more at: http://www.eltis.org/discover/case-studies/everyone-born-pedestrian-campaign-hungary#sthash.QPgajCS4.dpuf
--------------------
BLOGSPOT:
CANADA MILITARY
NEWS-Wheelchair Rights in Canada/ Hey Nova Scotia- Hey Canada- if ur driving
and u hit and badly injure or MURDER a pedestrian in a crosswalk, highway,
bicycle or bike rider on the highway SHOULDN'T U DO 10 YRS HARDTIME- instead of
a ticket 4 murder?? OR HIT BY LOUSY DRUNK DRIVER... SHOULDN’T U GET
LIFE???/Disability Rights in Canada March 25-2015
-------------
WORDPRESS:
O CANADA?- Why aren’t there
more (visible/invisible) disabled TV Anchors, Media, Radio, OnLine folks
representing us on air and radio?-Here’s how 2do it-make the world proud/
#1BRising /UN Peacekeepers stop raping/OmarKhadr dishonours Canada and our
troops who died 4 Afghan freedom
----------------
USA- KNOW YOUR RIGHTS ON CAMPUS- DISABILITIES-
USA-disabilities-
Know It 2 Own It: Advocating for Your Rights on Campus from the @USEdGov
Blog http://1.usa.gov/1FmoAfP
#Disability
WORDPRESS:
USA-disabilities-
Know It 2 Own It: Advocating for Your Rights on Campus from the @USEdGov
Blog http://1.usa.gov/1FmoAfP
#Disability
Know It 2 Own It: Advocating
for Your Rights on Campus
As we approach the
end of the school year, most high school seniors are preparing for graduation
and their future. At this time, I’m reminded that each passing year, more and
more students with autism and other disabilities are attending college with
their peers. For many of them this will be their first time away from home, a
time for excitement and a time for independence. It will also be the first time
where they will be responsible to advocate for their own needs at school.
The transition from
high school to college can be tough, especially for students with disabilities;
however, when students know their rights and where to get help, the transition
can be made a little easier. Some students, such as Elijah a high school senior
from Jacksonville, Florida, learn the importance of advocating for themselves
and their needs for accommodations while still in high school. Here is his
story and his wish for all students with disabilities.
A student’s ability to advocate for himself is important to succeed at the
college level. Every year, I have an opportunity to meet and work with a group
of about 15 autistic college students from various backgrounds and ranging in
age. Some of them are traditional college students, others are accessing
college through a TPSID program or a modified course of study. All of
them say the same thing – it can be hard.
Part of my job at the Autistic Self Advocacy Network is to provide incoming students with
training in self-advocacy through our Autism Campus Inclusion program and give
them the tools and resources they need in order to effectively advocate for
themselves and get the most out of their college experience.
Under the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, colleges and
universities are required to remove any barriers impeding the student, whether
these are architectural, communication related, or transportation and to provide
reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices. It is, however,
the student’s responsibility to know his or her rights and how to advocate for
appropriate accommodations. These accommodations could include:
- Wearing
noise-cancelling headphones in class,
- Using
laptops for note-taking
- A place
to doodle, fidget, pace, or sit on the floor in order to focus and learn.
- Live in a
single dorm room, even as a freshman if needed
- A quiet
testing space
- Alternative
formats of classroom materials, textbooks, and tests
In addition to getting the word out about self-advocacy,
we’ve created resources such as Navigating College and ACI to
assist students with disabilities as they navigate through higher education.
Autistic and other
students with disabilities will often face barriers from the day they set foot
on campus. In order for these students to succeed in college, we say,
self-advocacy is needed. You have to know your rights, have a plan for getting
the accommodations and modifications that are appropriate and needed, and be
prepared to face an array of challenges. However, by creating a community on
campus and bringing students together to share their experiences we remind one
another that self-advocacy is easiest when we know we aren’t alone.
The opinions expressed and materials contained in this blog are
not an endorsement by the U.S Department of Education and herein do not
necessarily reflect the position or policy of the United States Department of
Education.
Julia Bascom is the Deputy Executive Director of the Autistic
Self Advocacy Network.
Posts
you may also like
- Know It 2 Own It: Helping People with Disabilities Access
Middle Class Careers
- Know It 2 Own It: Ms. Wheelchair USA 2014 – 2015 Shares Her
Story
----------------
Edmonton woman who hit, killed man in crosswalk has
licence suspended, fined
CP | By The Canadian Press
Posted: 11/12/2014 3:08 pm EST Updated: 01/12/2015 5:59 am EST
----------------
10 Mar 2014 ... Soldiers killed in battle are
mourned by the whole community, and they were doing that ... “Pedestrians could cross at crosswalks. .... The
exception was during World War II, when fuel shortages and resource conservation ....
In 2012, automobile collisions killed more than 34,000 Americans, but
unlike our ...
---------------
BLOGSPOT: WORDPRESS
CANADA MILITARY NEWS- July
27 2014- from Canadian Point of View- God bless our troops. God bless
Israel-God Bless Canada-God bless Afghanistan- u choose Palestine- we choose
our gay brothers and sisters and ISRAEL- equality trumps ur
Hamas-Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Muslim killing Muslims without a care….
------------------
BLOGSPOT
CANADA MILITARY NEWS: KURDS
fight as bravely as AFGHANS 4 their daughters and sons and their very freedoms,
culture and a future of education and prosperity #1BRising /14 most beautiful
places in Middle East- we must save humanity and cultures /Videos of 1900s
Kurdish Music/ Beautiful Afghan Rubab- culture and music of the real
Afghanistan
------------
CANADA-
·
·
A Review of All Accidental Pedestrian Deaths in
Ontario .... Currently, Canada is ranked 10th in terms of fatalities per
billion vehicle kilometers travelled ...
www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca › ... › Office of the
Chief Coroner
·
·
Apr 29, 2015 - Review
of Ornge Air Ambulance Transport Related Deaths. July 2013 HTML / PDF- 1.35
MB ... Pedestrian Death Review. HTML / PDF – 958kb.
www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca › ... › Publications
& Reports
·
·
Jul 26, 2012 - Office
of the Chief Coroner Cycling Death
Review June 2012. ...collisions,
just like motor vehicle collision deaths and pedestrian
deaths, are ..
--------------
Office
of the Chief Coroner for Ontario
A
Review of All Accidental Pedestrian Deaths in Ontario
From
January 1st, 2010 to December
-------
USA- What happens when a motorist kills a pedestrian?
Started by billh, Sep 26 2006 07:59 AM
by Walt Seifert (executive director, Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates)
We frown on killing people with gun, knives or poison. If we catch the culprit the consequences can be harsh—long sentences, life in prison or even the death penalty. We are much more forgiving when someone kills with a car, especially if the driver is sober and exhibits a bit of remorse. Generally, when motorists kill a pedestrian or cyclist, if they are charged at all, they get off with a slap on the wrist from the legal system.
In West Sacramento 22-year old Amanda Latimer struck and killed crossing guard Bud Brown on Park Boulevard. Brown had just finished crossing kids to Westmore Oaks Elementary School. An 85 years old World War II vet, Brown is survived by a widow and sister. Latimer said she was reaching for her sunglasses. She pleaded no contest to vehicular manslaughter, a misdemeanor. Her sentence: three years probation, $390 in fines and fees and 200 hours of community service.
Shawn Joseph Ponce, 29, killed 17-year old Carrie Higgins on Hazel Avenue, near Curragh Downs Drive. Higgins, a bright Orangevale high school junior and soccer team member, was in the crosswalk crossing Hazel with a friend. Ponce pleaded no contest to vehicular manslaughter and felony hit-and-run. He did not stop after hitting Higgins, but turned himself in four days later. Ponce claimed he was reaching down for a baby bottle and thought the light was green when he went through the intersection. Now free on bond, at sentencing Ponce faces up to two years in prison—the length of the term is not so much because he killed someone, but because he didn’t stop.
Every year across the United States, motorists who speed, drive drunk, fall asleep, have the sun in their eyes or are distracted kill thousands of pedestrians and cyclists. Since the war in Iraq started, more than 700 American troops have been killed in the war zone. During the same time, motorists have killed about 7,000 Americans who were walking or biking.
At least one study confirms the conclusion that not much happens to motorists who kill pedestrians or cyclists. In San Jose, during 2001 and 2002 there were 31 pedestrian and 6 cyclist fatalities. Of the 11 pedestrian cases in which the driver was at fault, 4 were charged. Of the 2 cyclist cases in which the driver was at fault, neither driver was charged. Drivers were not charged in more than 75 percent of the cases in which they were at fault.
Why are drivers not held accountable? Why is punishment so light?
There are many factors in play. Courts, juries and police officers may sympathize more with the driver than the victim. “It could have been me driving,†seems to be the thought. The number of people who share a cyclist’s perspective is small and cyclists are often viewed unsympathetically. Because of this district attorneys are reluctant to prosecute. When they do, there can be difficulty in getting a conviction.
We need to do a number of things differently. We need safer roads, with more crossings for pedestrians, lower speeds and much better traffic enforcement.
We need a legal system that is more just. Some places in the world assume drivers are at fault in all car crashes involving pedestrians and cyclists. There needs to be better-trained police officers who make unbiased and informed reports. Prosecutors must be willing to prosecute and judges and juries willing to convict.
We need motorists with a different attitude about the serious responsibilities that go along with the privilege of driving. In a case that occurred in Orem, Utah, an eight-year old girl was in a crosswalk near an elementary school. A woman driving a mini-van rolled through the intersection and hit the child. The girl was spun around, suffered facial injuries and a dislocated shoulder.
The driver stopped only long enough to roll down her window and apologize. The girl's mother watched it all happen. The mother, Gloria Frutus, said, "I felt bad. I didn't think to say anything to the woman. She didn't say anything but, 'I'm sorry' and left."
In a way, this case is more chilling than the fatalities. The indifferent and casual attitude of the driver is profoundly disturbing. Hitting a little girl with a two-ton car is apparently simply a bother and no more serious than bumping someone in a crowd or inadvertently stepping on a foot.
Drivers are rarely out to kill—they are not committing murder. Even though they lack the intent to do harm, their carelessness takes lives. Saying you’re sorry is not enough. Being sorry is not enough. Punishing drivers won’t bring back the victims, but serves justice and may save others by making all drivers more careful. Irresponsible driving that kills should have consequences.
-----------
USA- Does Uninsured Motorist
Insurance Cover Pedestrians?
November 21, 2010 by EINSURANCE
Almost every state and the District of Columbia requires that
you carry a minimum level of car insurance as a condition of registering and
operating a vehicle. Some states also add uninsured/underinsured motorist
coverage to their minimum requirements. Uninsured/underinsured motorist
coverage helps cover your property damage and bodily injury costs when the
at-fault driver can’t or the hit and run driver won’t. In the case of an
underinsured driver, uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage helps compensate
for the difference between what that driver’s policy will cover and your
reality.
But what if you’re a pedestrian who is injured by someone
driving around without insurance? Maybe you have your own medical coverage, but
it hardly seems fair that you have to pay the deductible, co-pays and hospital
bills, or use up your vacation time and savings to cover lost wages. Worst-case
scenario, what if you or a loved one is killed by an uninsured driver while
walking? If you carry uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for your own
vehicle, your policy may cover you even if you’re on foot when the accident
happens.
Pedestrian coverage is a compelling reason to get this
relatively cheap car insurance coverage even if you aren’t required by law to
carry it. Research from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) reports that about 64,000 pedestrians are injured by vehicles in the
U.S. every year. Any impact with a moving vehicle is likely to result in a
serious accident, so it’s not surprising that about 5,000 pedestrians die as a
result of those encounters each year.
Here are more data from NHTSA and The Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety that should send you looking for Uninsured Motorist Coverage
quotes:
·
Pedestrian deaths account for 11% of all motor
vehicle deaths.
·
Following occupant death, pedestrians suffer the
most motor vehicle accident fatalities.
·
90% of all pedestrian fatalities involve a single
vehicle.
Some places are safer than others, statistically. The
aforementioned data (collected between 1998 and 2000) showed that although New
Mexico had the highest rate of pedestrian/vehicle fatalities per 100,000
population, Florida was the most dangerous place for walkers. Of the top 10
cities cited for pedestrian fatalities, 5 were in the Sunshine State and 3 --
Ft. Lauderdale, Miami and Tampa – had the highest pedestrian fatality rates
overall.
While you’re on foot, you might also want to consider that the
highest rate of pedestrian deaths (about 2/3rds) happen in congested urban
areas. Makes sense, since there are more cars and more pedestrians in cities.
But country dwellers beware: the ratio of pedestrian deaths to injuries is
greater on rural roads because the vehicles tend to be traveling faster.
Not surprisingly, these run-ins tend to happen most often on
Fridays and Saturdays after dark. And while drivers are frequently to blame,
pedestrians often invite disaster by wearing dark clothing, jaywalking and
walking while intoxicated or distracted.
-------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.