Oklahoma Statutes

Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-203 (2026)

Pedestrian-control signals

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section OK-LEGoklegislature.gov JustiaOkla. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever special pedestrian-control signals exhibiting the words “Walk” or a flashing “Don’t Walk” or the WALKING PERSON or UPRAISED HAND symbols are in place, such signals shall indicate as follows: 1. Walk. Pedestrians facing such signal may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal and shall be given the right- of-way in the direction of the signal by the drivers of all vehicles; 2. Flashing Don’t Walk or flashing UPRAISED HAND. No pedestrian shall start to cross the roadway in the direction of such signal, but any pedestrian who has partially completed his or her crossing on the walk signal shall proceed to a sidewalk or pedestrian refuge while the steady Don’t Walk or UPRAISED HAND signal is showing; and 3. Steady Don’t Walk or steady UPRAISED HAND. No pedestrian shall enter the roadway in the direction of the signal indication. Added by Laws 1961, p. 374, § 11-203, eff. Sept. 1, 1961. Amended by Laws 2024, c. 35, § 2, eff. Nov. 1, 2024.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2017–2017 · leading case: Smith v. Barker, 419 P.3d 327 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
Smith v. Barker, 419 P.3d 327 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “We find the existence of fundamental error, however, and return this case to the trial court for a new trial because there was a failure to instruct correctly on the law regulating the legal duties and rights of a "pedestrian/bicyclist" at a controlled crosswalk, as specifically…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-203(1): 1 case
Smith v. Barker, 419 P.3d 327 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017). “We find the existence of fundamental error, however, and return this case to the trial court for a new trial because there was a failure to instruct correctly on the law regulating the legal duties and rights of a "pedestrian/bicyclist" at a controlled crosswalk, as specifically…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 11-203(2): 1 case
Smith v. Barker, 419 P.3d 327 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017). “We find the existence of fundamental error, however, and return this case to the trial court for a new trial because there was a failure to instruct correctly on the law regulating the legal duties and rights of a "pedestrian/bicyclist" at a controlled crosswalk, as specifically…”
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.