Running on Road - When Legal vs not?

[jonovision_man]

Does anyone have a decent source for Canadian-specific legal opinions on this? I tried googling but have come up fairly empty, only U.S. stuff.

I did find this in the Ontario Highway Traffic Act (which defines any roadway as a "highway"):

Duties of pedestrian when walking along highway
179. (1) Where sidewalks are not provided on a highway, a pedestrian walking along the highway shall walk on the left side thereof facing oncoming traffic and, when walking along the roadway, shall walk as close to the left edge thereof as possible. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 179 (1).

... which implies we are required to use sidewalks where provided? Also I couldn't find anything requiring a driver to yield to pedestrians even if there aren't sidewalks, presumably they have to? But it's unclear to me.

Someone came pretty damn close to hitting me the other day on a road, I was running into traffic and close to the left edge, there was no sidewalk... just want to make sure I had the right of way! I have always assumed I did.

jono

[ian]

I never run as if I have right of way over any vehicle, even when I'm on a sidewalk (where I would have been hit several times without evasive measures on my part). In the past, I've run with a local police officer who pointed out that it is technically illegal to run across an intersection at a marked crosswalk but that the police have a thousand better things to do with their time than enforce that law, unless it leads to close calls with vehicles. I suspect that roads vs. sidewalks operate on a similar philosophy.

[Dstew]

Your widow would have had an excellent case against the driver: Maybe

Alberta Use of Highway and Use of Road Regulations:

90(1) When a sidewalk or path is located beside a roadway, a pedestrian
(a) shall at all times when it is reasonable and practicable to do so use the sidewalk or path, and
(b) shall not proceed along or remain on the roadway.
(2) If there is no sidewalk or path, a pedestrian who is proceeding along or on a highway shall at all times when reasonable and practicable to do so, proceed only on the left side of the roadway or the shoulder of the highway facing traffic approaching from the opposite direction.

(2) A pedestrian shall not proceed onto a roadway or proceed along a roadway into the path of any vehicle that is so close that it is impracticable for the driver of the vehicle to yield the right of way.


Yielding by pedestrians
92 A pedestrian who is crossing a roadway at any point other than within a crosswalk shall yield the right of way to vehicles on the roadway.

Most provinces tend to have the same sort of regulations or at least the same intend.

FYI for cyclists:

Rights and duties of operator
75 Unless the context otherwise requires, a person who is operating a cycle on a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the duties of a person driving a motor vehicle under Part 1 and this Part and Division 2 of Part 5 of the Act.

Operation of cycle
77(1) A person who is operating a cycle on a highway
(a) shall keep both hands on the handlebars of the cycle, except when making a signal in accordance with this Regulation or shifting the gears of the cycle,
(b) shall keep both feet on the pedals or foot rests of the cycle other than when stopped,
(c) shall not ride other than on or astride a regular seat of the cycle, and
(d) shall not use the cycle to carry more persons at one time than the number for which the cycle is designed and equipped.
(2) A person who is operating a cycle, other than a motor cycle, on a highway shall operate the cycle as near as practicable to the right curb or edge of the roadway unless that person is in the process of making a left turn with the cycle.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a person who is operating a cycle, other than a motor cycle, on a one-way highway in an urban area shall ride as near as practicable to either curb or edge of the roadway unless that person is in the process of crossing from one curb or edge of the roadway to the opposite curb or edge of the roadway.
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a person who is operating a cycle, other than a motorcycle, on a highway that has shoulders (a) in the case of a highway that has paved shoulders, shall operate the cycle on the right shoulder, and
(b) in the case of a highway that does not have paved shoulders, shall operate the cycle as far to the right of the roadway as practicable, unless that person is in the process of making a left turn.

Travel single file
78 A person who is operating a cycle on a highway in the same direction in the same traffic lane, except when overtaking and passing another cycle,
(a) shall not operate the cycle adjacent to another cycle travelling in the same direction, and
(b) in the case of a cycle other than a motor cycle, where more than one cycle is travelling in the near vicinity of and in the same direction as another cycle, shall operate the cycle directly in line with and to the rear or front of the other cycle.

* As a side note, there is stretch of road near my place where cyclists can out number cars. The one sign posted at a number of different locations is the "Single File" sign. It is the single biggest complaint of motorists on rural country roads about some groups going 2, 3 or even 4 wide and the car having to slow down before being able to go into the on coming lane to pass. For me, when I hear a motorist come up behind, I move over to my right as far as possible. I have lost count of the number of times motorists will move over to the left, some going into the on coming lane to give me room. There are some inconsiderate drivers but from my experience, there are cyclists and runners who think that they own the road or a pathway. This causes problems for the rest of us. I lost track of the number of times I have moved over to the right on a path and had some runner talking to their partner, not just a little over the yellow line but completely in my lane and it as if they expect me to stop and step off as their royal highness can pass. Unfortunately for those skinny little dweebs, I out weigh them and played hockey. I knocked this one particularly pompous older skeletor down and I turned to see the carriage I had caused. He was about to say something but as I was almost on the right shoulder of the pathway and I said, do you really want to mess this me, I took his medicine. He looked me in the eyes before impact and I believe he really thought I was going to step off the path. At one point, I got so feed up I would stare the person down and even drift to my left and make sure I "claimed" everything inch of the path on my side of the yellow line. So maybe this motorist was taking it out on you. Of course, he may have just been a jerk.

[jonovision_man]

Your widow would have had an excellent case against the driver: Maybe

Alberta Use of Highway and Use of Road Regulations:

90(1) When a sidewalk or path is located beside a roadway, a pedestrian
(a) shall at all times when it is reasonable and practicable to do so use the sidewalk or path, and
(b) shall not proceed along or remain on the roadway.
(2) If there is no sidewalk or path, a pedestrian who is proceeding along or on a highway shall at all times when reasonable and practicable to do so, proceed only on the left side of the roadway or the shoulder of the highway facing traffic approaching from the opposite direction.

(2) A pedestrian shall not proceed onto a roadway or proceed along a roadway into the path of any vehicle that is so close that it is impracticable for the driver of the vehicle to yield the right of way.


Yielding by pedestrians
92 A pedestrian who is crossing a roadway at any point other than within a crosswalk shall yield the right of way to vehicles on the roadway.

Most provinces tend to have the same sort of regulations or at least the same intend.

See it's still not entirely clear to me. In (2) it says pedestrians should be on the left or shoulder, which is great - that's where we tend to run (I do anyway). And your next (2) says basically we shouldn't suddenly jump out when a car is coming - again, makes sense, clear.

But that Yielding by pedestrians (92) applies to pedestrians crossing the roadway, which isn't what we're doing - we're running along the roadway. Yet I haven't seen the specific law requiring vehicles to yield either in the scenario.

So I'm left scratching my head. Ontario's laws are very similar to what you have in Alberta.

(As for the driver in my particular case - he swerved at the very very last possible moment, as I also darted off the road in terror... he was an older dude, so I think he was just daydreaming, not alert, or not blessed with very good distance vision. It didn't feel malicious.)

jono

[NMG]

The way I read it, the first (2) is basically saying that if you are on a road without a sidewalk, you have to travel facing traffic unless it isn't reasonable and practicable to do so.

To me, the second (2) is basically saying that pedestrians are not allowed to be on a road with traffic if it is impracticable for vehicles to yield the right of way to them.

So, I think there is a clear distinction. The second (2) is basically telling people that they are only allowed on a road if it won't cause issues for vehicular traffic. If this holds true, then the first (2) is explaining how they are to navigate once they are on the road.

I think where it could get tricky is trying to establish whether it is impracticable for vehicles to yield the right of way on a particular road. In some cases it could be obvious (busy stretch of freeway), but for others, it may be more of a judgment call. What about in the middle of winter when you have snowbanks piled up on the side, and runners cruising along 3-4 feet into the lane? To me, the second (2) should apply, because how the heck is a vehicle supposed to yield the right of way if they have to cross into oncoming traffic to do it? I think it really depends on the situation to be honest. I'm not sure it's clear cut.

Personally, I stick to sidewalks when I can. If I have to venture onto the road, I'm very cautious as I've had a couple of calls that were closer than I'd like. Even if I'm completely in the right and even though I'm a big guy, I'm still no match for a car.

[jonovision_man]

The way I read it, the first (2) is basically saying that if you are on a road without a sidewalk, you have to travel facing traffic unless it isn't reasonable and practicable to do so.

To me, the second (2) is basically saying that pedestrians are not allowed to be on a road with traffic if it is impracticable for vehicles to yield the right of way to them.

So, I think there is a clear distinction. The second (2) is basically telling people that they are only allowed on a road if it won't cause issues for vehicular traffic. If this holds true, then the first (2) is explaining how they are to navigate once they are on the road.

I think where it could get tricky is trying to establish whether it is impracticable for vehicles to yield the right of way on a particular road. In some cases it could be obvious (busy stretch of freeway), but for others, it may be more of a judgment call. What about in the middle of winter when you have snowbanks piled up on the side, and runners cruising along 3-4 feet into the lane? To me, the second (2) should apply, because how the heck is a vehicle supposed to yield the right of way if they have to cross into oncoming traffic to do it? I think it really depends on the situation to be honest. I'm not sure it's clear cut.

Personally, I stick to sidewalks when I can. If I have to venture onto the road, I'm very cautious as I've had a couple of calls that were closer than I'd like. Even if I'm completely in the right and even though I'm a big guy, I'm still no match for a car.

Agreed all around, I think you're reading it more or less correctly.

I find it not quite right that when I am a cyclist, I have very strong protection under the law - I can be on the road, it's unambiguous, and drivers must give me 1m of space by law.

It would be great to have the same kind of protection and clarity as a runner.

jono