Pedestrians and drivers; sets out responsibilities at marked and unmarked crosswalks. (SB644)

Introduced By

Sen. Patsy Ticer (D-Alexandria)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Pedestrians and drivers; responsibilities. Sets out the responsibilities of pedestrians and drivers at marked and unmarked crosswalks. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/09/2008Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 088182336
01/09/2008Referred to Committee on Transportation
01/31/2008Reported from Transportation (9-Y 6-N) (see vote tally)
02/04/2008Constitutional reading dispensed (40-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)
02/05/2008Read second time and engrossed
02/06/2008Read third time
02/06/2008Passed by for the day
02/07/2008Read third time
02/07/2008Passed by for the day
02/08/2008Read third time and passed Senate (22-Y 16-N) (see vote tally)
02/08/2008Communicated to House
02/13/2008Placed on Calendar
02/13/2008Read first time
02/13/2008Referred to Committee on Transportation
02/20/2008Assigned Transportation sub: 2
03/10/2008Left in Transportation

Duplicate Bills

The following bills are identical to this one: HB1270.

Comments

Harry Landers writes:

Section 46.2-923.1. (Drivers to stop for pedestrians at crosswalks; pedestrian responsibilities) seems to make good sense. However, this bill also includes reference to numbers, or symbols meaning "Walk" or "Don't Walk". Can somebody explain exactly which numbers mean "Walk" and "Don't Walk"? Why numbers and symbols? The words "Walk" and "Don't Walk" seem clear and unambiguous.

I see dead people writes:

pedestrian control signals do not use words any longer, they use symbols for the words. There has been court cases thrown out because of this

Bradley writes:

by numbers, i am guessing that they mean the countdown to the end of pedestrian phase that is provided on some ped signals.

Anton writes:

I don't get it. Toscano goes to great lengths to distinguish marked from unmarked crosswalks, then lumps them together throughout the rest of the legislation (with one exception). If his intent is to treat marked and unmarked crosswalks equally, why bother separating them to begin with? And why bother marking crosswalks at all, if every intersection is going to be full of invisible, legally enforceable crosswalks anyway?