Nothing better illustrates the history of the push and pull between pedestrian and motorized vehicle rights than the ebb and flow of pedestrian right of way in crosswalks. As car usage increased and highways became freeways, pedestrian corridors were obliterated in neighborhoods. As modern culture placed increasing numbers of humans into motorized vehicles, multi­lane roadways stretched the distance pedestrians required for crossing safely. And while overall pedestrian death totals became lower each year, the primary cause was fewer people walking. Modernization efforts by the Oregon Legislature qualified and eroded the pedestrian right of way in crosswalks until the end of the twentieth century, when proponents of nonmotorized travel promoted making way for human powered roadway users in an Oregon landscape that included livability, fitness, environmental and fuel­saving themes. This work significantly expanded pedestrian rights and encouraged pedestrian use of the roadways.

In Plasker v. Fazio, 259 Or 171 (1971) the Oregon Supreme Court noted:

“When Oregon in 1931 enacted the Uniform Act Regulating Traffic On Highways, it provided in mandatory terms ‘[t]he driver of any vehicle shall yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk***’. The only qualification was contained in the provision that the right of way did not relieve the pedestrian of the duty to exercise due care.”

In what the court stated was a “drastic” qualification of the pedestrian’s right of way, the 1941 Oregon Legislature limited driver duties to yielding the right of way to pedestrians in marked crosswalks on the half of the roadway upon which the vehicle was traveling or was approaching so closely from the opposite half of the roadway as to be a danger, which in effect halved the area of right of way for the pedestrian in a crosswalk. The other change imposed a mandatory duty on the part of pedestrians not to “leave the curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield”.

The duty of the pedestrian was further revised in 1947 when the Legislature not only rejected an effort to restore the pedestrian’s curb-to-curb right of way, but it also added the phrase “or in crossing” to the requirement that the pedestrian not enter the roadway in front of a vehicle. The 1947 law imposed a new level of restriction on pedestrians’ rights because it broke the pedestrian right of way into segments; under the new law a pedestrian was required to wait or turn back if a car was coming even if the coast was clear when they left the curb to cross the road, if the car came so close as to be a hazard “in crossing”.

In 1971, the Oregon Supreme Court broke with other more pedestrian protective jurisdictions in interpreting what “other places of safety” actually meant in deciding what area a pedestrian was not supposed to leave when a car was approaching. Other states interpreted the same language to mean areas off of the side of the road or at the curb, but the Oregon Court concluded it meant the middle of the road. This further eroded the pedestrian right of way and left pedestrians without any legal protection when cars approached while they were lawfully crossing the street. Pedestrians were now required to re­evaluate their decision to cross the roadway before crossing to the other half of a road in order to determine whether traffic was so close that it would be “impossible for the driver to yield.”

In 1983 the legislature changed the duty of the driver from being required to stop up until the point when it was “impossible for the driver to yield,” to the present requirement in ORS 814.040 to yield to the pedestrian when the vehicle is “so close as to constitute an immediate hazard”. The change from “impossible to yield” to “an immediate hazard” further undercut the right of way because the question of what is so close as to constitute an “immediate hazard” is capable of wide interpretation and provides drivers the excuse that they did not think they could stop in time so they tried to drive around the pedestrian without stopping.

 Oregon Revised Statute (ORS) 801.385 defines “pedestrian” as “any person afoot or in a wheelchair”. This broad definition probably includes people on foot as well as foot/wheel combinations: walkers, runners, highway workers, bladers, skateboarders and persons using a foot on the ground to propel a scooter or bicycle, as well as people rolling in a wheelchair.

The basis for government power to control the movements of pedestrians on Oregon’s highways and sidewalks is contained in ORS 810.080. This provision provides “local road authorities” with the power to regulate pedestrian traffic by creating or closing crosswalks, including mandating that pedestrians only cross within a crosswalk. State delegation of control over particular locations to local authorities who have maintenance and law enforcement responsibility over an area makes sense, but also creates additional levels of rules that have the force of law and requires checking state, county and city laws to learn what pedestrians may do on the street. For example, Oregon law allows pedestrians to cross the road at any point, but the City of Portland requires that pedestrians must use a crosswalk if one is available within 150 feet. Few jurisdictions provide adequate signs to warn pedestrians of what the local rules require, a potential trap for the unwary — a violation of local rules may include the potential for harsh penalties. In Portland a violation of the 150-foot rule carries a maximum fine of $500 and up to 10 days in jail! (Portland City Code 16.70.210). Any person cited for an offense with such a large potential penalty should appear before a judge and explain any mitigating circumstances as there will almost always be a diversion or traffic education option to avoid financial hardship.

Of course local ordinances carry the potential for abuse by unequal application, particularly where there are no signs visible to warn citizens of their rules. Ignorance of the law is no excuse in a court of law, but it sure is a point worth making if you receive a ticket for violating some rule you never knew existed. The section on local rules contained in The Pedestrian Rights Guide does contain many provisions for Oregon’s larger cities and a quick perusal of the contents demonstrates that municipalities take full advantage of their power to regulate how and where pedestrians may cross the street. For example, how many people know Portland requires that pedestrians cross the street at right angles when not in a crosswalk? (Portland City Code 16.70.220). These local laws are on the books but are seldom enforced, except when a violator is a member of an unpopular group or when a person gets hurt by a motorist and an insurance company raises the technical legal violation in court to defend against an injury claim. Knowing your legal rights as a pedestrian includes identifying the legal traps in advance of a problem.

The City of Portland has released a three minute animated video demonstrating Oregon’s “Every Corner is a Crosswalk” law.

From the City of Portland’s website: 

“Pedestrian safety has long been a concern for the City. In downtown Portland, 72% of pedestrian collisions are a result of driver error. Citywide, 49% of pedestrian injuries happen in a crosswalk. One out of three traffic fatalities is a pedestrian or a bicyclist (Portland 1985 – 2000), and pedestrian injuries are the third leading cause of unintentional injury-related death among children.

According to Oregon law, ORS 811.028, drivers must stop and remain stopped until pedestrians crossing the street clear the driver’s lane plus the lane before and the lane after the driver’s lane. If the driver is at an intersection with a traffic control devise, the driver must stop and remain stopped until pedestrians crossing the street clear the driver’s lane plus 6’ on either side of the driver’s lane. If the person is blind and using a white cane or seeing eye dog, the driver must wait for the pedestrian to cross curb to curb regardless of the length of the crossing.

Intersections and pedestrian crossings are frequently busy places with a variety of distractions competing for the attention of drivers. This new video is a light-hearted tool to teach and inform Portlanders about Oregon crosswalk laws. “As pedestrians and drivers we need to all be more cautious and courteous and work collaboratively to keep Portland the wonderful city that it is,” says Mayor Adams. “By working together we will lower pedestrian injuries and fatalities and make our transportation system safer for all modes.”

Using animated characters, accentuated pedestrian and driver movements, and music as reinforcement, the film demonstrates drivers properly stopping for pedestrians at an unmarked, a mid-block, and a traffic controlled intersection with a marked crossing. The pedestrians in the film appropriately put one foot into the crossing to indicate their intent to cross. For safety, they always look before crossing and continue to look while they cross. Before passing each lane of traffic, they correctly stop and look to ensure that oncoming traffic has stopped before they proceed forward.

Funding for the animated film was provided by ODOT and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In addition, Animated Traffic Law Center provided a significant amount of pro bono work to complete the project. Community partners that supported this film include Willamette Pedestrian Coalition, Bicycle Transportation Alliance, Elders In Action, Legacy Emanuel Hospital Trauma Nurses Talk Tough, ODOT, TriMet, City of Portland and others.

The animated film will be shown this summer before Portland Park & Recreation’s “Movies in the Park” film showings, at specific DMV offices, facilities that serve the needs of recent immigrants and other community facilities.”

Walking on two legs is the original and definitive human transportation. Upright locomotion distinguished us from our evolutionary forbears and remained for some 100,000 years the primary way to get from point A to point B on land. Walking got most people 99.9% of the way through human history. But since Ford made four wheels affordable, Rockefeller sold us five bucks worth of regular, and Eisenhower built the interstate highway system, the Faustian ascendancy of motorized transport has been inexorable and accelerating. We now find ourselves at a pivot point in urban transportation, having realized, along with a small but increasing number of cities worldwide, that the future of getting around in cities will have to mean fewer cars and more human powered motion, we need to reevaluate and reestablish the norms that define relations among pedestrians, bicycles, public transport and the automobile. What does modern right of way mean, and who has it under what circumstances?