OregonStatutes.biz
Writing Sample
Re:
Crosswalks
Sir/Madam:
The action, here, happened in 2003, although
pedestrians have had to obey the Walk/Don’t walk
signals since at least 1983.
A 2003 bill (2003 Oregon Laws c. 278 – SB
315) contained three (3) sections of importance:
Section 1 amended ORS 811.010 to require drivers,
when entering a crosswalk where there is no traffic
control device, to stop and remain stopped if a
pedestrian was in their lane or the lane adjacent
theirs.
(Prior to 2003, the motorists had only to yield the
right of way and proceed only when it was safe for
the pedestrian);
Section 4 amended ORS 811.040 to replace the
requirement to yield with a command to stop for a
pedestrian “lawfully” within a crosswalk in a manner
that complies with ORS 814.010 (which required, and
still requires, pedestrians to obey Walk/Don’t walk
signals); and,
Section 5 amended ORS 811.045 to make it illegal to
turn at a red light unless the drivers stops, not
just yields, to a pedestrian within his travel lane,
or, the adjacent travel lane, if the pedestrian is
“lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk,” that is, if
the pedestrian is in compliance with ORS 814.010.
///
The
2005 law (2005 Oregon Laws c. 746, s 2 – SB 591) while
maintaining the requirement that pedestrians obey the
“Walk/Don’t Walk” signals, repealed the three (3)
statutes amended by the 2003 law, combined them into ORS
811.028, and, reduced the lane-plus-one requirement to
lane-plus-six-feet.
Best,
Greg
Wasson
enclosures
2003
a.
2 pages -
copies of relevant minutes of the Senate
Committee on Judiciary, March 12, 2003
Note:
At
the bottom of page 1, Chair Minnis complains about
pedestrians who violate traffic control devices, and,
witness Vanderslice provides some historical background.
This exchange is on Tape # 55A.
Vanderslice explains that it took decades of life
with the automobile before it was decided that
pedestrians had to obey traffic control devises
b.
1 page -
copies of relevant minutes of the House Committee
on Judiciary, May 8, 2003
c.
1 page -
partial transcription of the House Committee on
Judiciary, May 8, 2003
Note:
While Counsel Prins refers to section 4 of the bill,
and, the section of interest to you is section 5, both 4
& 5 use the same language in requiring pedestrians to
obey the “Walk/Don’t Walk” signals for there to be any
liability to the driver
d.
2 pages -
the relevant sections of the 2003 bill - SB 315 –
as passed
e.
2 pages -
the relevant sections of ORS incorporating the SB
315 changes
2005
f.
1 page -
copy of relevant minutes of the Senate Judiciary
Committee, March 14, 2005
Note:
The 2005 creation of ORS 811.028 was technically done by
SB 591.
But, that language actually started as SB 492.
The House Committee on State & Federal Affairs
deleted the language of SB 591, as approved by the
Senate, and, substituted the language of SB 492.
g.
2 pages -
transcription, Senate floor debate, re:
SB 492
Note:
The Archives hasn’t yet got the floor tapes for the 2005
House of Representatives.
I would have had to go to the capitol building to
run them down.
Given the fact that the real action happened in
the 2003 session, I elected not to do that.
h.
2 pages - copy of SB 492 as it passed the Senate
i.
2 pages -
copy of SB 591 as approved by the 2005
Legislature
j.
1 page -
Staff Measure Summary, House Committee on State
and Federal Affairs, SB 591A.
Note:
SB
591A is the version of SB 519 that included the language
of SB 492
k.
1 page -
copy of ORS 814.010 requiring pedestrians to obey
“Walk/Don’t Walk” signals
Note:
ORS 814.010 started life as part of a bill with about
600 sections.
It probably would have taken quite a while to
locate the minutes.
Given the fact that the language of the statute
seems pretty clear, I elected not to do that.
|
