MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE
Act 300 of 1949
257.613 Applicability of regular traffic control signals to pedestrians; special pedestrian control signals; violation as civil infraction.
Sec. 613.
(1) If special pedestrian control signals are not utilized, the regular traffic control signals as indicated in section 612 shall apply to pedestrians as follows:
(a) Green indication. Pedestrians facing the signal may proceed across the roadway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk.
(b) Steady yellow indication. Pedestrians facing the signal are advised that there is insufficient time to cross the roadway and a pedestrian then starting to cross shall yield the right of way to all vehicles.
(c) Steady red indication. Pedestrians facing the signal shall not enter the highway unless they can do so safely and without interfering with vehicular traffic.
(d) Red with arrow. Pedestrians facing the signal shall not enter the highway unless they can do so safely without interfering with vehicular traffic.
(2) If special pedestrian control signals are installed, they shall be placed at the far end of each crosswalk and shall indicate a "walk" or "don't walk" interval. These special signals shall apply to pedestrians only to the exclusion of a regular traffic control signal or signals which may be present at the same location, as follows:
(a) Walk interval—Pedestrians facing the signal may proceed across the highway in the direction of the signal and shall be given the right of way by the drivers of all vehicles.
(b) Don't walk (steady burning or flashing) interval—A pedestrian shall not start to cross the highway in the direction of the signals, but a pedestrian who has partially completed crossing on the walk interval of the signal shall proceed to a sidewalk or safety island while the don't walk interval of the signal is showing.
(3) A person who violates this section is responsible for a civil infraction.
History: 1949, Act 300, Eff. Sept. 23, 1949 ;-- Am. 1955, Act 245, Eff. Oct. 14, 1955 ;-- Am. 1956, Act 71, Eff. Aug. 11, 1956 ;-- Am. 1964, Act 222, Eff. Aug. 28, 1964 ;-- Am. 1966, Act 237, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 510, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2023 · leading case:
Ray v. Swager, 909 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Ray v. Swager, 909 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“See MCL 257.613(2)(b). Although the eyewitness accounts vary, there is evidence that Swager said something to the effect of "let's go," and the team crossed the street.”
Armstrong v. City of Ann Arbor, 227 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
“The actual instructions given on this point read as follows: "It is also the duty of the plaintiff in connection with this occurrence to use ordinary care for her own safety.”
20231207_C364223_36_364223.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 5× “In this case, defendants argued, and the trial court agreed, that Murphy violated MCL 257.613, which provides in pertinent part: (2) If special pedestrian control signals are installed, they shall be placed at the far end of each crosswalk and shall indicate a “walk” or “don't…”
Est. of Evania Barbara Schobloher v. Christopher John Cieslak (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “655(1) states: “Where sidewalks are provided, a pedestrian shall not walk upon the main traveled portion of the highway. Where sidewalks are not provided, pedestrians shall, when practicable, walk on the left side of the highway facing traffic which passes nearest.”
People of Michigan v. Treavion Lawrence-Kenyatta Person (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “Additionally, MCL 257.613 requires that pedestrians crossing a road with “special pedestrian control signals” such as a walk/don’t walk sign to obey those signals when crossing or be responsible for a civil infraction.”
Kersch Ray v. Eric Swager (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“See MCL 257.613(2)(b). Although the eyewitness accounts vary, there is evidence that Swager said something to effect of “let’s go,” and the team crossed the street.”
Kersch Ray v. Eric Swager (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“Swager then said “let’s go,” or something to that effect, and the team ran across the street in violation of MCL 257.613(2)(b). While Swager concedes that he said “let’s go,” many of the student runners testified that they heard Swager, but that they also looked both ways and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.613(2) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Treavion Lawrence-Kenyatta Person (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
“Additionally, MCL 257.613 requires that pedestrians crossing a road with “special pedestrian control signals” such as a walk/don’t walk sign to obey those signals when crossing or be responsible for a civil infraction.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.613(2)(b) — 5 cases
Ray v. Swager, 909 N.W.2d 917 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“See MCL 257.613(2)(b). Although the eyewitness accounts vary, there is evidence that Swager said something to the effect of "let's go," and the team crossed the street.”
20231207_C364223_36_364223.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
“In this case, defendants argued, and the trial court agreed, that Murphy violated MCL 257.613, which provides in pertinent part: (2) If special pedestrian control signals are installed, they shall be placed at the far end of each crosswalk and shall indicate a “walk” or “don't…”
Kersch Ray v. Eric Swager (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“See MCL 257.613(2)(b). Although the eyewitness accounts vary, there is evidence that Swager said something to effect of “let’s go,” and the team crossed the street.”
People of Michigan v. Treavion Lawrence-Kenyatta Person (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
“Additionally, MCL 257.613 requires that pedestrians crossing a road with “special pedestrian control signals” such as a walk/don’t walk sign to obey those signals when crossing or be responsible for a civil infraction.”
Kersch Ray v. Eric Swager (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“Swager then said “let’s go,” or something to that effect, and the team ran across the street in violation of MCL 257.613(2)(b). While Swager concedes that he said “let’s go,” many of the student runners testified that they heard Swager, but that they also looked both ways and…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.613(b)(2) — 1 case
Armstrong v. City of Ann Arbor, 227 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).
“The actual instructions given on this point read as follows: "It is also the duty of the plaintiff in connection with this occurrence to use ordinary care for her own safety.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.