Question: Every day I and other pedestrians are almost hit trying to cross Royal Oak Drive on the unmarked crosswalk at Falaise Crescent in Victoria. We have to wait forever to cross and then the motorists won't even let us cross in safety.
I have actually started crossing the street with my iPhone in camera mode ready to go in case they try to rush us.
To further advise you of the extreme difficulties that pedestrians have in that area, motorist do race up the hill East bound Royal Oak on a regular basis at night. I want to know why there aren't any traffic cameras to catch these felons?
View of the Intersection
No Unmarked Crosswalk Present
I've puzzled carefully over this one and I am going to take the position that there no unmarked crosswalk across Royal Oak Drive at Falaise Crescent and that drivers only need to exercise statutory caution when encountering a pedestrian on the roadway.
Definition of Crosswalk and Sidewalk
My reasons are as follows:
"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;
"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;
The Boulevard is in the Way
There are sidewalks perpendicular to Royal Oak along the sides of Falaise. Extending their lateral lines across Royal Oak could create an unmarked crosswalk as outlined in the definition. However, the grassy boulevard between the set of lanes confuses the issue and it depends on whether is can be considered to be improved for the use of pedestrians.
Case Law on Crosswalks
Mr. Justice Shaw in the BC Supreme Court case of McKee (Guardian of) v McCoy examined what "improved for the use of pedestrians" meant and found that grass could be considered one of those improvements.
The BC Court of Appeal, on hearing from an engineer for the municipality of Saanich found that this specific spot was improved, but not maintained for pedestrian use.
The case was referred back to Mr. Justice Shaw who revised his earlier decision that 100% of the fault was with Ms. McCoy to 80% to McCoy and 20% to McKee as McKee was not in an unmarked crosswalk.
Boulevard Not Meant for Pedestrians
In light of these judgements, especially given the lack of curb let downs at the boulevard, I would expect the courts to decide that this particular boulevard is not meant for pedestrian use and the expectation is that pedestrians should go down the block to the marked crosswalk in order to have motor vehicle traffic be required to yield to them.
Share This Article
- Log in to post comments