[HN Gopher] Jaywalking legalized in New York City
___________________________________________________________________
Jaywalking legalized in New York City
Author : Thomashuet
Score : 181 points
Date : 2024-10-30 06:50 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| olliej wrote:
| Not growing up in america I never understood what jaywalking was
| - I legit assumed it was a pedestrian crossing a _freeway_
| because nothing else made sense. Growing up I was taught
| explicitly to do what in the US was a crime: crossing between
| intersections because it is vastly safer than crossing at
| intersections.
|
| Obviously, there's a more complex issue with jaywalking where it
| is a crime that is trivially easy to enforce in a discriminatory
| manner, and it creates endless opportunities for pretextual
| searches once NY's clearly unconstitutional stop-and-frisk laws
| were overturned.
| vasco wrote:
| Jaywalking is any crossing in a wrong / illegal way, not about
| intersections specifically. Mostly it's about not using
| crosswalks, so I don't see how it collides with what Europe
| does.
|
| In Europe you also have differences with some countries where
| crosswalk lights are as a mandate from God and nobody will
| cross even at 2am deserted road. And then you have countries
| where the crosswalk lights are mere decorations.
| e1g wrote:
| I had an identity crisis in Germany when, at 2am on a
| deserted road, a group of hooligan-looking teenage boys told
| me off for crossing on red.
| pm3003 wrote:
| Something like that happened to me on my first day as an
| adult in Germany. Wide road, Sunday afternoon, visibility
| over 1km in both directions, not a car in sight. I was
| accompanied by a girl from the place where I was to work. I
| had just met her and she was showing me to the nearby
| convenience store.
|
| She suddenly started screaming when I crossed the street
| while the pedestrian light was red. I didn't get what the
| problem was so I crossed back, to much drama.
|
| She (or her boyfriend) later told me there was a long-
| running campaign during the 90s aiming to curb pedestrian
| death, that featured vivid TV spots showing kids die
| because they routinely saw adults jaywalking and imitated
| them.
|
| So jaywalking = killing children.
|
| Also German children of all ages are encouraged to say to
| jaywalkers "You're not a good example for the children.".
| It happened to me more than once.
| bell-cot wrote:
| When there might plausibly be little kids watching, I
| make sure I'm _very_ obvious about checking for oncoming
| traffic. Repeatedly. Before & during crossing the road.
|
| Where onlooking kiddies seem implausible, I pretty much
| do the same thing. Far better to be an obvious chicken
| than dead right.
| macintux wrote:
| I was observing a parade once and stepped into the
| stopped traffic to talk to a driver about his vehicle.
|
| I felt terrible later when I realized I had set a
| dangerous example for all of the kids around.
| int_19h wrote:
| This is also very much the agitprop in Russia, although
| in practice people mostly just ignore it. Sometimes in
| very frustrating ways, too, like crossing the road on red
| in front of an ambulance with the emergency light on.
| timomaxgalvin wrote:
| The distinction is about pedestrians being forced to use
| crossings. In the UK you can use them, but you can cross
| where you like if you want to.
| Grimbat wrote:
| Not entirely true. Generally true in England & Wales and
| Scotland aside from motorways, but in Northern Ireland the
| cops can fine you for it, although it rarely seems to be
| enforced.
|
| https://www.psni.police.uk/sites/default/files/2023-01/0000
| 8...
| Delphiza wrote:
| Also in the UK we have pedestrian refuge islands. Not a
| crossing, as there is no pedestrian priority, but useful
| little bits of road furniture that reduces the likelihood
| of getting mown down by cars. As a side effect they also
| tend to slow down car traffic due to narrowing of the road.
| Americans may see them as official jaywalking points.
|
| https://www.trafficchoices.co.uk/traffic-schemes/refuge-
| isla...
| IshKebab wrote:
| Which countries obey crossing lights as strictly as you
| describe? I've been to lots of European countries and none
| were like that. Not in the way that the US is.
| vasco wrote:
| Parts of Germany, lots of Poland, Austria, etc. South
| Europe where I'm from is "decoration land", but the more
| east you go the harsher they are/were with enforcement so
| the more people abide.
| int_19h wrote:
| In countries where open police corruption is more
| routine, cops love enforcing such laws because it's a
| very low-effort to extort bribes. Not even because the
| fine is significant, but because the procedure to pay it
| once given a ticket may be rather onerous compared to
| just handing over a banknote and going on your way.
| keiferski wrote:
| Germany and Poland both do this.
| pm3003 wrote:
| In Poland I always respect the pedestrian lights.
| Contrary to France and even Germany, drivers expect you
| to respect them, and especially in Warsaw there is a very
| high tolerance on speeding on big wide arters. Cars
| crossing intersections at speeds of more than 90km/h (7.8
| furlongs per minute for Americans) are usual in Warsaw.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >90km/h (7.8 furlongs per minute for Americans)
|
| As an American, I had to do the math on that -- which is
| really annoying.
|
| If you want to provide us with something we can
| understand, it's furlongs per _fortnight_ , not per
| minute. ;)
| fourteenfour wrote:
| 56mph
| echoangle wrote:
| I would say they are generally obeyed in Germany, of course
| there are always people that walk over a red light but
| generally, most people obey it.
| julian_t wrote:
| I'm currently in Tokyo and it is the norm to wait for the
| green man, even if it is a two-lane road there isn't a car
| in sight. I can understand waiting at one of the mega
| intersections, where you can barely make out the
| pedestrians on the other side - definitely waiting for
| permission to cross there.
| Schiendelman wrote:
| Also currently in Tokyo. While the norm, it's starting to
| change! I've definitely seen a lot of younger people
| willing to cross against a red when it's obviously safe.
| tincholio wrote:
| Finland, for one
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| Poland is pretty strict. They will fine you if you cross
| the street where there isnt a crosswalk. And generally
| people wait for green light in Poland even if there are
| zero cars on the road.
| naberhausj wrote:
| In addition to the ones people already mentioned: In
| Copenhagen it was very rare for people to cross on red. I
| never got and dirty looks when I did it, but it was
| definitely not the norm.
| 0x457 wrote:
| Illegal in Russia. There is even a common trick during
| driving exam: examiner ask you to let a person cross in a
| middle of a road. You do that, and you've failed the exam.
| olliej wrote:
| Jaywalking is a pedestrian crossing outside of explicitly
| designated crossings points. In the US that means by
| *default( any pedestrian crossing any street at any location
| other than a pedestrian crossing or an intersection,
| regardless of distance to such a point.
|
| There is a massive difference between "country culturally
| tends towards using designated crossing points" and "it's a
| criminal offense to not use them". I'm curious about which
| countries outside of the US, especially in Europe, that
| criminalize jaywalking.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| If France, the law states that a pedestrians should use
| designated crossing points if one is available within 50
| meters. Crossing at a red light is also illegal.
|
| It is punishable with a 4EUR fixed fine. I don't know of
| any lesser punishable crime and it is rarely enforced in
| practice despite jaywalking being common. But it is still a
| crime.
| int_19h wrote:
| It's a spectrum. E.g. in Russia it's illegal to cross the
| road if there's a crosswalk or intersection visible from
| the point where you cross it (and cops _will_ fine you for
| it - or rather, attempt to extort a bribe).
| rsynnott wrote:
| > In Europe you also have differences with some countries
| where crosswalk lights are as a mandate from God and nobody
| will cross even at 2am deserted road
|
| I think that's mostly just certain parts of Germany.
| Attrecomet wrote:
| It was a fun evening with the guys from Bavaria in Berlin
| Dilettante_ wrote:
| Do you not have pedestrian crossings/stoplights for pedestrians
| in your country?
| foo42 wrote:
| In the UK we have various types of pedestrian crossing, but
| they're an optional convenience. You can use them, or you can
| find a safe place and time to cross yourself.
| fire_lake wrote:
| And if no one uses them, they weren't well designed to
| start with.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| I guess the jaywalking law is partly to avoid disrupting
| traffic, but the most efficient cross is the one when no
| traffic is present, and that's more likely in the middle
| of the road than at an intersection.
| fire_lake wrote:
| Yep - prioritisation of motorists is baked in.
|
| This makes sense for freeways but in cities this should
| be flipped.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| In the UK, not at every intersection, by any means. In fact,
| it's probably a minority in many places. We're taught how to
| cross in the middle of the road.
| olliej wrote:
| Of course, the question is "is it a crime to cross a road
| outside of those designated points" in america the answer is
| often "yes".
|
| Which means the only legal place to cross a road is an
| intersection, which is significantly _less_ safe for
| pedestrians.
|
| Next time you're going for a walk, try to estimate what % of
| intersections or crossing points are protected (stop signs
| for all roads, traffic lights, or barriers). Similarly, when
| you're out driving try and see how much you slow down for
| each intersection (ie non-jaywalking crossing points) - this
| is not a judgement on driving style this is just about
| working out relative safety. Any unprotected intersection you
| go through without significantly slowing down (think dropping
| to parking lot speed) for is a location where crossing away
| from the intersection is safer.
|
| Safety for pedestrians crossing a road is primarily from
| collision avoidance - as I said in another comment the amount
| of damage from a pedestrian vs vehicle collision high at even
| "low" car speeds.
| leptons wrote:
| In most places, jaywalking typically means crossing outside of
| a crosswalk while being within a short distance of a crosswalk.
| It's more dangerous for pedestrians near crosswalks, cars are
| turning and have limited visibility, so using the crosswalk
| (when crossing is allowed, if there's a crossing indicator) is
| the rule.
|
| If you are a certain distance away from a crosswalk, you are
| allowed to cross the road but must yield to oncoming cars.
|
| It's really pretty simple and common-sense. Of course there are
| differences in local rules, but this is the way it usually
| works.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| I think "no jaywalking because safety" would make more sense
| if crosswalks were totally safe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but
| in NY, can't traffic move over crosswalks even against
| traffic lights, in some circumstances? I always find that
| confusing-and frightening!
| tsimionescu wrote:
| In certain parts of the USA, cars are allowed to turn right
| from the first lane even on a red light, unless there is
| some explicit sign prohibiting it in that intersection.
| fragmede wrote:
| Unless expressly _prohibited_ , eg by said sign, right-
| turn-on-red defaults to being legal across vthe US.
| kube-system wrote:
| Not entirely. Right-on-red is by default _illegal_ in
| NYC, and will be soon in DC and Atlanta.
|
| Also a good number of states prohibit right-on-red by
| default when the red light is in the shape of an arrow.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| Unless I'm missing something: Defining traffic laws is
| something that the states do on their own, and these
| aren't things that the federal government generally gets
| involved with.
|
| Thus, there are 50 different sets of these laws, plus DC.
| Any similarities between them may be nothing more than
| incidental.
| leptons wrote:
| Yes, and in that case the car has to yield to the
| pedestrian, if the pedestrian has the right of way. It's
| really very simple, and in every basic driving test.
| vel0city wrote:
| The problem is the driver is likely looking to the left
| to see if it's safe to quickly pull out and not bother
| looking to their right for that pedestrian stepping out
| into the intersection.
|
| I've been lightly hit a few times because of people like
| that.
|
| I've also almost been hit by people ignoring the stop
| line and stopping abruptly in the crosswalk area
| immediately in front of me.
| leptons wrote:
| The laws are clear about this. If the crosswalk has a
| crossing indicator, allowing people to cross, then the
| people have the right of way. It doesn't matter what the
| person in the car is wanting to do, they must yield to
| pedestrians. If they hit a pedestrian, then it's clearly
| the driver's fault. If a pedestrian crosses outside of a
| crosswalk (a distance away from a crosswalk), they are
| supposed to yield to oncoming cars. If they don't and the
| pedestrian gets hit by a car, it's the pedestrian's
| fault. Got it?
| wahern wrote:
| New York City is actually one of the few US jurisdictions
| that DO NOT permit right turns on red as a default rule.
| dominicrose wrote:
| > crossing between intersections because it is vastly safer
| than crossing at intersections
|
| It's true in most city streets because even if cars drive
| faster outside of intersections, if we walk fast and have good
| visibility then it's not an issue.
|
| There are very busy roundabouts with crosswalks right next to
| them. As a driver having to stop means being scared for your
| car's behind.
| olliej wrote:
| The speed of vehicles is not super relevant in the context of
| the intrinsic safety for a pedestrian crossing the road.
| _Assuming reasonable amounts of visibility_.
|
| The safest way for a pedestrian to cross a road is a location
| where there is the greatest opportunity to avoid a collision
| at any speed. That means minimizing number of directions you
| need to watch for traffic, and maximizing the likelihood of
| being in the line of sight of drivers. That means you want to
| cross away from intersections.
|
| Crossing between intersections means that as a pedestrian you
| only have to be concerned about traffic from two (or even
| just one) directions, and for oncoming traffic you will
| definitionally be in the direction the drivers are facing.
|
| Crossing at intersections means as a pedestrian you are
| having to watch for traffic from more directions, including
| directly behind you, and traffic approaching the intersection
| has drivers who are necessarily going to be having to look at
| places other than directly in front of them in the case of
| traffic coming towards you on the street you are crossing,
| and traffic coming from the other streets may not by
| physically able to see you on the intersecting cross street
| (from their PoV) prior to actually reaching the intersection.
|
| Hence crossing between intersections is safer because it
| reduces the likelihood of any collision, as it's easier for
| everyone involved to be aware of everyone else.
|
| Speed of a pedestrian vs vehicle collision is much less of a
| safety factor than just not having the collision at all,
| because the difference in speed between "walk away" and
| "going to hospital" is very small - well within normal
| intersection speeds. At higher speeds of course the
| likelihood of going to the morgue skyrockets, but when
| considering the safety of "low speed" collisions it's
| important to consider a "low speed" collision that is minor
| for an adult is still easily able to kill a child, and the
| speed _required_ to kill is not that high as demonstrated by
| multiple pedestrian vs cyclist collisions that have killed
| people (I think generally older people or just really bad
| luck but its just important to recognize that the "serious
| damage to soft and squishy people" is way lower than people
| think).
| throwaway313373 wrote:
| > it is vastly safer than crossing at intersections
|
| Why is it safer?
| macintux wrote:
| Other comments have pointed out that intersections are
| difficult to cross safely because cars are coming from
| multiple directions, often in non-obvious ways.
|
| Between the intersections you only have two directions to
| worry about.
| throwaway313373 wrote:
| Yes, but at intersections drivers are forced to slow down
| and look for traffic and maybe prepare to make a turn, so
| you can expect them to move slower and have more
| situational awareness.
|
| Am I wrong?
| Schiendelman wrote:
| You should be right! But you are misidentifying the
| problem.
|
| The problem here is not the norm, it's the exceptions.
| Some drivers don't slow down or pay attention. Those are
| the ones that cause _all_ the risk. While normal drivers
| behave better at intersections, a pedestrian can 't trust
| that every driver will do that.
|
| In a mid block crossing, you don't have to rely on
| drivers behaving a certain way, so the predictability is
| increased and the overall result is safer.
| macintux wrote:
| I witnessed a driver make an aggressive left turn as soon
| as a light turned green, to beat the first car going the
| other way.
|
| Unfortunately that aggressive left turn ended abruptly
| when they hit a pedestrian crossing the street on that
| same green light. Thankfully the pedestrian seemed mostly
| shaken up, but I have to imagine there were long-term
| consequences of that.
| zjp wrote:
| I kind of wonder now whether that was the most broken law in
| history.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Asking pedestrians to cross streets where cars are stopped and
| they are mostly protected?
|
| How is that broken?
| badgersnake wrote:
| I'm guessing they meant most frequently broken.
|
| But as someone who lives in a country that has never had that
| law, I'm pretty sure it's unnecessary.
| hapidjus wrote:
| Broken as in people not respecting it I assume.
| grujicd wrote:
| Not broken in terms of design and intent, but broken by
| people all the time. As in "I broke the law, and the law won"
| yieldcrv wrote:
| Because the pedestrians and roads were there before cars.
|
| Criminalizing the behavior was regulatory capture by Big
| Auto.
|
| It being enforced by police from Connecticut who treat NYC's
| minorities like a VR simulation was broken.
|
| Strong recommendations and pointing out the loss in civil
| suits would have always been totally fine.
| zjp wrote:
| Other posters are right, I meant 'most frequently broken'.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| It still worked the other way as well.
|
| Come to think of it, laws that are most frequently broken
| by the general public are also probably deeply broken in
| their concept or the worldview they were based on.
|
| For instance speeding laws, while making sense on paper,
| are completely inadequate for the thing they want to
| improve. Structural changes to either the roads or other
| infra, the cars, or more deterring power than a slap on the
| wrist are probably needed in the places where they're
| routinely broken by normal people.
| relistan wrote:
| Lots of ways. Some of them are detailed here: https://www.blo
| omberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-16/jaywalkin...
| fire_lake wrote:
| Making the pedestrians go the long way prioritises driving,
| which leads to more people driving, which leads to more
| traffic, fumes, etc.
|
| But most broken seems like a stretch!
| Gigachad wrote:
| The average person probably violates jaywalking laws
| multiple times a day. What other law do most people break
| constantly as just part of day to day life?
| defrost wrote:
| Anti-miscegenation laws were a common place one for some
| time .. _arguably_ some alive today are still a living
| crime.
|
| Trevor Noah titled a book _Born a Crime_ in reference to
| his birth in South Africa, similar laws remained in force
| in _many_ US states until 1967 which means a number of
| people walking about the US today have an existence that
| was a crime.
| vel0city wrote:
| I imagine most Americans violate speeding and other
| vehicles moving laws far more often than jaywalking. I
| imagine the majority of Americans haven't actually
| crossed a street as a pedestrian in the last week.
|
| Why would they? They drive from their home to their job
| to the parking lot of the grocery store to the drive
| through pickup line at school for their kids.
|
| I'm one of the more transit/pedestrian/bike people in the
| group I routinely hang out with and I haven't actually
| crossed the street as a pedestrian in a few days.
| int_19h wrote:
| Even if you always drive, parking in large cities is
| often limited enough that you have to walk a fair bit
| from where you can find a spot to where you actually need
| to go.
| vel0city wrote:
| You might overly be estimating your ideas of what is
| "urban".
|
| Tons of Americans never have to deal with crossing a
| street for their parking. They're not parking at some lot
| around the block and walking. It's all just a sea of
| pavement. City codes mandate each big box store has
| dozens of spots per shelf in the store. This on its face
| seems like a gross overstatement but looking at maps
| shows the truth of the seas of empty lots surrounding big
| box stores.
| int_19h wrote:
| I live in an American town with <8k residents, so I know
| exactly what you mean.
|
| But many large cities don't have such city codes and have
| very limited parking as a result, even around large
| stores etc; especially not in downtown. Which, even if
| you don't live or work there, is still somewhere people
| sometimes have to go to for other reasons, from visiting
| a fancy restaurant to jury summons.
| reedf1 wrote:
| Granted you've misinterpreted the posters point - but I will
| respond to your perception of his point (which I agree with).
|
| You could easily imagine a world where pedestrians have the
| right of way on the streets, and cars "request access to the
| road" in a similar way that pedestrians do. Actually, if this
| is not easy for you to imagine - it suggests enormous
| internal bias.
| echoangle wrote:
| It would kill the utility of cars though, you could never
| drive faster than maybe 30 miles per hour or you would
| constantly run people over.
|
| Pedestrians are more nimble than cars, so it kind of makes
| sense that cars have the right of way. As far as I know,
| large container ships have right of way over small vessels
| for the same reason.
| carom wrote:
| >It would kill the utility of cars though, you could
| never drive faster than maybe 30 miles per hour
|
| That sounds lovely. I would live in that city.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| That city is London - well, to an extent. The majority of
| London roads have a 20mph limit.
| eertami wrote:
| A lot of European cities are also 30kmph in
| residential/central areas, with even 20kmph limits in
| pedestrianised areas.
| 0xEF wrote:
| Have you ever driven through a downtown urban area? You
| can't go more than 30mph anyway, even if you wanted to.
| There is simply too much connections, turns, etc.
|
| And yet, I still disagree that pedestrians should be able
| to just enter the road willy-nilly. Crosswalks are there
| for safety because it sets the same expectations for
| everyone using the road, drivers included, thus creating
| order and flow that is generally reliable.
|
| This is also the same problem I have with cyclists that
| think they should be allowed to ride against traffic,
| ignore stop signs, etc. By not moving with the expected
| flow, they endanger themselves and creat problems. When I
| am making a right hand turn, for example, and a cyclist
| has decided to ride against traffic, I am not compelled
| to look to my right as I am timing my turn because I am
| not expecting traffic to be there since a right turn has
| you crossing zero lanes of traffic and merging with on-
| coning that would be on your left.
|
| I don't really like our car-centric roads in the US at
| all, but rules are in place for a reason.
| BlackFly wrote:
| > I am not compelled to look to my right as I am timing
| my turn because I am not expecting traffic to be there
| since a right turn has you crossing zero lanes of traffic
| and merging with on-coning that would be on your left.
|
| Except you may have just passed a cyclist without leaving
| enough time to turn because you barely registered their
| presence and are now going to cut them off. Or you
| stopped at an intersection and they approached on the
| right because that is where they are supposed to stay by
| law and you didn't check your blind spot before you
| started. The first situation can happen with cars where
| you pass a slow moving car just before an intersection
| and immediately slow down to turn right, merging back
| into the lane and cutting off the car. If you have driven
| any amount of time at all, I am sure you have seen that
| annoying scenario. The second situation doesn't typically
| happen with cars because of how right turn lanes are
| constructed but can (unlawfully) occur when someone
| (typically a tourist) was in the straight going lane but
| realized they wanted or needed to turn right.
|
| Dedicated bicycle lanes are meant to make it clear that
| you are indeed crossing traffic when you turn right
| because bicycles as slow moving traffic are intended to
| stay in that area as an exceptional case.
| maccard wrote:
| > Except you may have just passed a cyclist without
| leaving enough time to turn because you barely registered
| their presence and are now going to cut them off.
|
| > and you didn't check your blind spot before you
| started.
|
| No amount of legislation or changes in rules will protect
| from people who aren't paying attention. These changes
| don't have an impact immediately, but the only way to
| make them is to do them at one point or another. The
| people learning to drive in NY now will know that things
| are different, and in 10-15 years the behaviour will
| change.
| 0xEF wrote:
| I should clarify that when dedicated bike lanes are
| present, I absolutely look for cyclists in both
| directions. Again, setting expectations is important.
| It's also why we use turn signals.
|
| My reference to cyclists goinh the wrong way takes place
| in the suburbs where I have lived most, and bikes are not
| exactly common. On a four lane highway with a speed limit
| of 55mph, multiple driveways, etc (Not Just Bikes calls
| them Stroads), a cyclist moving against traffic on a
| narrow shoulder is not expected. We can preach all day
| about "paying attention" but we have created a situation
| that demands high levels of attention from all, but
| cyclists feel they are exempt from the rules of traffic,
| making the situation worse in some immature act of
| defiance.
|
| I like my bike. I ride it as often as possible and travel
| to places _specifically_ because they have good biking
| infrastructure. But when I am in a place where therd is
| none, I ride with traffic, use my hand signals, and
| assume drivers cannot see me because they have a hundred
| other things they need to pay attention to, so I put
| effort into making myself visible and communicating
| intent.
|
| It's not that hard.
| BlackFly wrote:
| > but cyclists feel they are exempt from the rules of
| traffic, making the situation worse in some immature act
| of defiance.
|
| The vast majority of drivers are continuously violating
| laws. On top of the continuous speeding violation (+10-15
| is surely ok?) add the occasional roll through, failures
| to yield, failure to use a turn signal, speeding in
| school zones, passing without sufficient distance,
| running reds, double parking, etc and the police pretty
| much always can pull over any given automobile driver.
| This fact is well known: the default state of a driver is
| one of rule breaking.
|
| Primary attribution fallacy is the contextualization of
| our own errors or rule violations while attributing those
| of strangers to character flaws (immature, defiant). You
| pass drivers doing all of the above things every day, but
| it is the cyclists you notice because they are different
| and the other drivers are surely doing the same as you.
| But you understand the context in which you violate laws
| or make mistakes.
|
| It is not that hard to understand that everyone is human.
| relistan wrote:
| This speed limit, or lower, is pretty common in major
| European cities. Helps divert investment to things more
| beneficial to society than individual car ownership,
| improves transit, cleans up cities, makes for great
| public spaces.
| echoangle wrote:
| Yes, I was saying that 30 miles would have to be the
| limit on every street though, in cities you would
| probably have to do 10 if everyone could step onto the
| street at every moment.
| EliRivers wrote:
| We don't need to guess at probabilities.
|
| We can look at the data. Aactual cities where jaywalking
| isn't a crime; they do not set the speed limit at 10, and
| it all seems to work fine.
| echoangle wrote:
| But just because jaywalking isn't a crime doesn't mean
| pedestrians have right of way. Is that the case anywhere?
| I thought that was the proposal, which is much different
| than allowing people to cross everywhere, after looking
| out that there's no car coming.
|
| reedf1 wrote:
|
| > You could easily imagine a world where pedestrians have
| the right of way on the streets, and cars "request access
| to the road" in a similar way that pedestrians do.
| coremoff wrote:
| Pedestrians have quite broad right of way in the UK - you
| can't step into moving traffic and expect them to slam on
| the brakes, but you will see people crossing anywhere and
| everywhere at any time:
|
| https://www.thewindscreenco.co.uk/help-advice/highway-
| code-2...
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >?It would kill the utility of cars though, you could
| never drive faster than maybe 30 miles per hour or you
| would constantly run people over.
|
| In NYC, the speed limit is 25 miles per hour. What's
| more, there are plans to reduce that to 20mph in a bunch
| of places.
|
| Moral: Don't drive in NYC.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| > utility of cars
|
| Using the right tools at the right place is part of it:
| cars are useful for some trips, less for others. Trying
| to solve every transportation problem with a unique
| solution was IMHO the original sin of this.
|
| > Pedestrians are more nimble
|
| Think kids going to school and elderlies. Having
| something that work for them requires either putting the
| burden on cars or removing cars from the picture. One
| costs a lot more than the other, and in the case you want
| to keep cars in cities the former is probably more
| attractive than the latter.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > you could never drive faster than maybe 30 miles per
| hour or you would constantly run people over.
|
| Wait, when are you driving faster than that in a city
| anyway? City roads here are mostly restricted to 30kph;
| travel times didn't significantly increase when this was
| imposed a while back.
| consteval wrote:
| It's NYC, you're not driving over 30 anyway.
| badgersnake wrote:
| That's literally how it works in the UK
| mysterydip wrote:
| Population density of London: 15,000 per square mile
|
| Population density of Manhattan: 78,000 per square mile
|
| (according to wikipedia on both)
| Arnt wrote:
| I think your trying to imply something, but I cannot tell
| what. Could you possibly make it explicit?
| mysterydip wrote:
| If you allow pedestrians to cross anywhere at any time
| with right of way, that can work to a certain density. On
| the other end of the scale, traffic will be at a
| standstill due to a constant stream of pedestrians. I
| don't know exactly where on that scale either of those
| cities is, but the argument that it works in the UK where
| the density is 5x less seems flawed.
| coremoff wrote:
| I've posted in the sibling thread r.e. the density (which
| I believe you have underestimated by several orders of
| magnitude), however a stroll around london will show you
| that, excepting arterial roads, cars always have to deal
| with pedestrians crossing at any time and place,
| including between you and the car ahead if you come to a
| stop, or if there's more than a couple meters between you
| and the next car. Even busy arterial roads will have to
| deal with people walking across them if there are large
| gaps or the traffic is slow or stalled.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| I'm struggling to believe London Brigde area and the
| square mile get 5x less congested than New York. What
| areas of London and New York are we comparing?
| coremoff wrote:
| I believe you'll find that the London number you mention
| is the average density of the Greater London Metropolitan
| Area.
|
| The City of Westminster has a day-time population of
| around 1 million people, and its area is around 8 sq
| miles; (doing casual searching).
| rsynnott wrote:
| So on that basis, jaywalking should be prohibited on
| Manhattan Island, because it's population density is
| greater than that of London, which we have for some
| reason decided is the arbiter, but allowed virtually
| everywhere else in the US, where the population density
| is less than London?
| bitcharmer wrote:
| This comparison makes no sense. If this was in good
| faith, you'd compare Manhattan and the square mile or
| westminster.
| mysterydip wrote:
| It was in good faith. Not knowing much about the UK, I
| took the largest city to be the densest. Seems I was off.
| ndsipa_pomu wrote:
| However, pedestrians can cross wherever/whenever they
| think that it's safe to do so anywhere in Britain
| (Northern Ireland I think has some kind of jaywalking
| law). It's not just in London or other cities, but remote
| countrysides too where crossings may not be available.
| Pedestrians have priority, but it's definitely frowned
| upon to cause vehicles to have to slow/swerve to avoid a
| collision.
|
| The Highway Code was recently updated (a few years ago)
| to make it more explicit that pedestrians crossing a side
| road junction should have priority over vehicles trying
| to turn into the side road. However, that's not
| necessarily followed by all drivers/cyclists etc.
|
| Basically, drivers/cyclists are expected to make all
| efforts to avoid a collision and will be considered at
| fault unless it's a scenario where the pedestrian steps
| into the road without enough time for the driver/cyclist
| to react and avoid them.
| viraptor wrote:
| I don't think that's not very comparable. You don't get
| that many high rise residential buildings in central
| London, but it gets all the workers anyway. It's not as
| extreme, but think of Shibuya crossing having 0
| population. We'd need some measure of people on the
| streets instead.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| There are also intermediate options, e.g. pedestrians have
| the right of way if there isn't a designated pedestrian
| crossing within sight.
| Mawr wrote:
| No need to imagine:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqQSwQLDIK8
| ryandrake wrote:
| Wow, an intersection like that in the USA would have at
| least one road rage death per day from violently
| impatient drivers.
| tmnvix wrote:
| Because it's not 'asking' if it's a law. If you're
| legislating that people can't just walk across a deserted
| street where it's most convenient then you have a broken law.
| Legislate against disrupting traffic if you really need to.
| Not disrupting traffic? What's the problem?
| freefaler wrote:
| If the street is empty then it's easy to recognize that.
| However what will the rule be if there is a car, but far
| away, or not that far away. It's a slippery slope with a 2
| ton SUV driving at 50mph and a person "interpreting" that
| it's not disrupting it.
|
| Ambiguity will be the problem and it is solved by the rule
| of "not crossing at all". The lesser of 2 evils.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Cars are already supposed to slow down if they see
| pedestrians on the street, even if the pedestrian is
| crossing illegally, same as they are supposed to avoid
| drivers doing illegal things. It's the police's job to
| punish illegal behavior, not drivers'.
|
| So, in the situation you describe, the solution is clear:
| the car has to slow down, and any police officer is
| supposed to notice that the car had to slow down and
| issue some citation to the pedestrian for not respecting
| the right of way. This is exactly how all traffic
| violations work: if some car is not yielding to you, you
| don't drive into them, you break to avoid the accident,
| and hope that the police sees this and issues a citation
| to the other driver.
| freefaler wrote:
| Rules for people are not the same as a code for a
| compiler. You may enact a rule, but people are not
| guaranteed they will comply with it either because they
| will brake it or they will forget/ignore it.
|
| If a bad rule is enacted and it kills 100 people per year
| more, will enforcement of the rule bring back those 100
| people?
|
| Rules should take into account the stupid things people
| will do and that in real life you won't get 100%
| compliance and enforcement won't get you to 100%. (many
| real life examples)
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Sure, the results have to be measured and the rules
| adjusted. But a possible result of this rule is exactly
| that it will make drivers drive more slowly in general,
| for fear of hitting pedestrians, which would overall
| reduce accidents, even outside of pedestrian deaths.
| NoMoreNicksLeft wrote:
| > will enforcement of the rule bring back those 100
| people?
|
| Yes. Enforcement of the rules, when done properly, does
| save lives. We have psychology studies that show that
| judgement/punishment needs to be swift/certain. When that
| is the case, human behavior is altered (sometimes
| permanently).
|
| > and that in real life you won't get 100% compliance and
| enforcement
|
| No one needs 100% compliance. We need something up near
| 98% or 99%, which is achievable.
| simgt wrote:
| > It's a slippery slope with a 2 ton SUV driving at 50mph
| and a person "interpreting" that it's not disrupting it.
|
| Maybe the problem here is that a 2 ton SUV shouldn't be
| driven at 50mph when pedestrians are anywhere near. I
| always find it interesting how the ones advocating for
| the absolute freedom of owning and driving an SUV
| everywhere, to carry 70kg of human flesh, are usually
| also the ones asking for the restriction of the freedom
| of other users of the public space.
| freefaler wrote:
| The problem is not how big is the car or any other
| subject. The problem with any rule that is badly
| formulated is the ambiguity it creates. In this instance
| this bad definition can lead to very bad consequences.
|
| Bad rules = ambiguous rules and need for interpretation
| and that leads to many bad consequences.
| simgt wrote:
| There is no ambiguity here, if you don't have the right
| of way you will be liable if something happens. But
| "something happening" will likely have to be more than
| just disrupting an SUV driver going at 50mph by making
| him slow down a bit.
| int_19h wrote:
| There are many countries in the world that have such
| "ambiguous" rules wrt pedestrian crossings. Much of
| Europe, for example.
|
| Can you cite any specific examples of this being a
| problem anywhere in practice?
| ithkuil wrote:
| I think jaywalking being technically illegal allows law
| enforcement to use an expedient to arrest people they
| want to arrest for other reasons, for example, there is
| no law that would allow to arrest you for "walking while
| black", but crossing the street at an unauthorized point?
| Yeah that works
|
| See a judge doing the right thing:
|
| https://youtu.be/0PUgbArgXJA?si=9-8viC2MM-mIGEFe
|
| We don't need a society that relies only on judges doing
| the right thing. We need better laws
| consteval wrote:
| Crosswalks are typically at intersections - this is NOT where
| pedestrians are most protected. Often, it's safer to cross in
| the middle of the road, particularly if it's one way.
|
| When you're at an intersection, there's cars coming from many
| directions. In addition, from the crosswalks I've seen they
| don't even stop turning cars - the turning cars have to be
| looking and stop themselves.
| IshKebab wrote:
| Nah it's definitely speeding.
| gosub100 wrote:
| I find it comical that it's usually liberal leaning folks that
| want to use early 1900s interpretation of the law for why it's
| bogus. Yet they want "regulation" for so many contemporary
| issues. A true liberal would adapt and move with the times:
| vehicles are the primary way people move in most parts of the
| country. The average speed AND acceleration of cars (and the
| people driving them) is MUCH higher than the days of the
| Model-T. "Regulating" the coexistence of vehicles and living
| meat bags seems like common sense, and saying "cars weren't
| here 120 years ago" is irrelevant.
| 2024user wrote:
| Surprisingly the word jaywalking comes from jay-driving which was
| coined to describe drivers driving on the wrong side of the road.
| Initially the term jaywalking really only applied to poor
| etiquette when walking on the sidewalk.
| 94b45eb4 wrote:
| So if you are waiting at an intersection pedestrian crossings and
| getting impatient you can just move over a bit and cross anyway?
| tlonny wrote:
| You can cross wherever and whenever is safe to do so. If
| traffic conditions don't facilitate this, pedestrian crossings
| provide guaranteed crossing points where pedestrians have right
| of way.
| alexanderchr wrote:
| From the article "It also allows for crossing against traffic
| signals and specifically states that doing so is no longer a
| violation of the city's administrative code."
| hnbad wrote:
| Did you read the article? Pedestrians can always cross but they
| then don't have the right of way and have to yield to traffic.
| Basically everyone can keep doing what they've been doing all
| along but police can no longer arrest them for it through
| selective enforcement.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >Did you read the article? Pedestrians can always cross but
| they then don't have the right of way and have to yield to
| traffic. Basically everyone can keep doing what they've been
| doing all along but police can no longer arrest them for it
| through selective enforcement.
|
| As a lifelong New Yorker, I can tell you that arrest is never
| an option for any violation of the city's administrative
| code. Rather it's a fine.
|
| And as you alluded to, black and brown people were the vast
| majority of those fined under the jaywalking regulation.
|
| As a cis white guy, I didn't even know that jaywalking was
| 'illegal' in NYC until folks started talking about
| 'legalizing' it a few years ago.
|
| As I mentioned, I've lived here pretty much all my life and
| have 'jaywalked' in front of police hundreds if not thousands
| of times and none have ever even looked at me funny.
|
| So yes, this is a very good thing. Just one very, very small
| step on the road to 'a more perfect union', IMHO.
| Exoristos wrote:
| How do they fine you without arresting you? Tape a citation
| to your back as you walk past?
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Most people's idea of arrest means taken into custody,
| rather than the actual meaning of stopped.
|
| If they prevent you from walking away, you are arrested.
| nobody9999 wrote:
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/arrest
| nobody9999 wrote:
| If a state trooper pulls you over in your car for
| speeding or throwing trash out of your car window to give
| you a ticket, are you now under arrest?
|
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/arrest
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Basically it means that pedestrians are allowed to cross the
| road anywhere, anytime, but they still have to yield to car
| traffic except at pedestrian crossings without a semaphore or
| at the Walk signal. It's a very common-sense law.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Basically updating the law to match what everyone already
| does.
| mettamage wrote:
| In every part of the world. The whole concept of jaywalking
| feels backwards.
| timr wrote:
| > they still have to yield to car traffic except at
| pedestrian crossings without a semaphore or at the Walk
| signal.
|
| This isn't true. Car traffic must yield to pedestrians.
| Pedestrians don't always have the right of way, but you
| (hopefully obviously) can't just arbitrarily mow them down.
|
| The only time this would matter is if you hit someone and it
| went to court. Thus in practice, you have to yield to
| pedestrians whenever you can reasonably do so. It's actually
| written into NY law (section 1146: "Due Care").
| tsimionescu wrote:
| No, this is a misunderstanding of what right of way means.
| Drivers are never allowed to intentionally cause accidents,
| either with other cars or with pedestrians. If you have
| right of way in an intersection but a car is nevertheless
| not yielding to you, you are _not_ allowed to plow into
| them if you can reasonably avoid it. That doesn 't mean
| that you don't actually have right of way, or that you need
| to stop at every intersection to make sure that someone is
| not yielding.
|
| The same is true with pedestrians crossing where they have
| to yield to cars. It's their responsibility to check that
| no cars are passing before crossing. At a crosswalk,
| drivers will slow down if they see a pedestrian heading
| towards the crossing; they don't need to (and won't) at
| other places. Of course, if they see a pedestrian in the
| middle of the road, they are not allowed to hit them, just
| like they're not allowed to hit a car.
| timr wrote:
| We're saying the same thing, so "misunderstanding" is a
| bit of a strong claim.
|
| > At a crosswalk, drivers will slow down if they see a
| pedestrian heading towards the crossing; they don't need
| to (and won't) at other places.
|
| They literally must. It's in the law I cited:
|
| https://law.justia.com/codes/new-
| york/vat/title-7/article-26...
|
| You can go to jail if you don't take due care to avoid
| hitting a pedestrian, or even an animal. The right of way
| of the person being hit is irrelevant. But sure, if _you_
| , pedestrian, cause an accident due to your failure to
| respect right of way, you have also violated a traffic
| law, and you could be punished for it.
|
| In practice, in a place like NYC, you're going to have to
| go to pretty extreme lengths for this to apply. Maybe if
| you dart into traffic maliciously, and a car swerves to
| avoid you and hits something? I dunno. It's hard to
| imagine a scenario.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| It means pedestrians are always right even when they are wrong.
| Especially when they are wrong.
|
| It means they can do whatever they want whenever they want
| wherever they want and everybody else on the road is obligated
| to accomodate them.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| If only this were true. Only some people drive, but even
| drivers become pedestrians as soon as they get out of their
| car.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| What's the alternative? Stand-your-ground laws but for the
| right to get to Starbucks 10 seconds faster?
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| I grew up in Southern California. My parents strictly observed
| traffic laws, and riding in the car with them, I would often hear
| their disapproving gossip about pedestrians' _faux pas_ ,
| including wearing black at night.
|
| In high school, a classmate tried to help me loosen up a bit, and
| he'd encourage our group to cross a busy stroad. "They'll stop!
| They'll stop for you!" he assured me. He was right...
|
| I visited Catalonia awhile ago. My companion was a native there
| and helped me understand local customs. I was able to drive her
| car a little bit, LHD, although the roundabouts tended to
| bewilder me. On foot, we'd approach a busy street and she
| encouraged me to just cross. She showed me how to hold out a hand
| as a signal of my intent. Motorists would slow and yield. She was
| also right.
|
| I heard that the walk signal buttons are called "beg buttons", as
| in "pedestrians beg to enter the street". I use them
| scrupulously. My justification is that a theoretical personal
| injury lawsuit is easier to litigate, if I can prove I was doing
| everything right.
| ryandrake wrote:
| > My justification is that a theoretical personal injury
| lawsuit is easier to litigate, if I can prove I was doing
| everything right.
|
| I guess the way I see it is if you want your grave stone to
| read "Here lies AStonesThrow. He had the right of way!" then by
| all means, step out into traffic--they'll always stop for you.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Sounds like survivorship bias to me. A substantial fraction of
| drivers are generally not looking forward or paying attention
| at any given time... you're just rolling the dice by assuming
| they will see you and stop.
| maxwellg wrote:
| Does anyone know if beg button presses get tracked? I often
| wonder if pressing it increases some great counter in the sky
| that future city planners can use to design an intersection
| better.
| gxonatano wrote:
| Let's not forget that jaywalking was essentially created by the
| automotive industry and its lobbyists, to make life more
| convenient for drivers. It started in car-heavy places like
| California, and eventually became a law virtually everywhere in
| the US, but was never really enforced in New York City, where
| most people walk or take public transit, rather than drive. If,
| like most New Yorkers, you walk several kilometers a day, through
| dozens of intersections, it's ludicrous to suggest that you
| should only walk at crosswalks, and only when the walk sign is
| lit. New Yorkers don't have a concept of "jaywalking"; it's just
| "walking."
| nobody9999 wrote:
| >New Yorkers don't have a concept of "jaywalking"; it's just
| "walking."
|
| As a general rule, I watch the cars and not the traffic lights.
| Mostly because many motorists (and NYC buses are the worst!)
| often don't pay attention to pedestrians, intersections or
| traffic lights. In fact, I'm _more_ careful when walking
| through an intersection than in the middle of the street.
| throwaway984393 wrote:
| Yep. The times I've been hit by a car while walking it was
| the car rolling through stop signs, lights and turns.
| metabagel wrote:
| Yes, crossing at intersections is much more complex, with
| traffic typically coming from many more directions than away
| from intersections.
| wahern wrote:
| And yet jaywalking accounts for the majority of pedestrian
| deaths, despite being a fraction of the number of
| crossings.
|
| Believe it or not, most drivers _do_ look out for
| pedestrians. Some better than others, but another set of
| eyeballs is invaluable, especially from the actual car that
| risks hitting you. Unfortunately, drivers do not expect
| people to cross in the middle of the street. And they never
| will, generally speaking. People are constantly milling
| around on the sidewalk, standing on curbs, doing all manner
| of crazy things, but _not_ actually crossing. From a driver
| 's perspective, a pedestrian about to cross the street
| typically looks indistinguishable from a pedestrian just
| doing the normal insane stuff pedestrians do. Then in a
| split second they go from normal pedestrian to crossing
| pedestrian, which is often much too late for a driver to
| respond, assuming they even noticed, _unless_ it 's at an
| expected crossing.
|
| Yes, intersections feel dangerous and risky. But that's
| precisely why they're safer--pedestrians and drivers alike
| feel the anxiety, whereas when jaywalking both the
| pedestrian and car often don't sense any risk at all.
| frmersdog wrote:
| These deaths largely occur on high-speed roadways where
| people shouldn't be walking, or where the speed should be
| lower. The issue in both cases is a lack of public
| transit density. If you're in a dense area with a ton of
| pedestrians, the speed should be low enough that you CAN
| react, and there should be transit options that lower the
| number of car trips. In less dense areas, where
| automobile speeds are higher, auto and pedestrian traffic
| should be segregated; again, there should be other
| transit options that keep pedestrians away from spaces
| ripe for collisions.
|
| Essentially, build more rail/bus lanes/bike lanes and
| lower traffic speed. The problem isn't jaywalking and it
| never was.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| and the separation has to be realistic.
|
| if you have businesses and residences fronting onto
| opposite sides of a high speed road and the nearest legal
| crossing is a half mile away, that's not realistic.
| almost nobody will decide "hey let me add a whole mile of
| walking to my journey and a few minutes at a signal to
| cross safely."
| wahern wrote:
| I live in SF. We _just_ had an accident the other day
| that indisputably can be pinned on jaywalking--late at
| night, cross where there was an actual fence, and the car
| hadn 't been speeding. In fact, the limit is 25 there.
| Jaywalking figures prominently in pedestrian deaths in
| this city, and it's not simply because of speeding as
| there simply aren't that many streets where you can go
| that fast, and in fact in some of the worst areas (e.g.
| Tenderloin) you'll find the slowest speeds. Pedestrian
| deaths are also often elderly, as younger victims would
| have been more likely to survive at the speeds they were
| hit.
|
| Another major issue in this city, though, is visibility,
| what with all the tightly packed parallel parking, and
| streets (especially in the western half) just the
| perfectly wrong width for modern car A pillars. I would
| fully support shutting down dozens of streets that criss-
| cross the city to through traffic and dedicate them to
| biking and pedestrians. The bike lanes here (where people
| end up dying, regardless) piss me off to no end as much
| of time the city could have just given an entire street
| over to bikes a block away, rather than some of the most
| trafficked (by cars) thoroughfares, and everybody would
| be better off.
|
| But another odd thing about SF is that pedestrians simply
| don't look. In every other major city I've lived or
| visited, in the US and around the world, the vast
| majority of pedestrians look before crossing a street.
| I've lived in SF for nearly 20 years and I can't get over
| how people just cross the streets--wide streets, busy
| streets, blind corners, etc--without a care in the world.
| It doesn't make it any less tragic, but... it's just so
| fscking bizarre. And I don't mean to excuse their deaths.
| Cars _should_ be more careful, and they 're definitely
| not--I'm wary of letting my children cross streets alone
| here, and I get honked regularly for not gunning it the
| moment a pedestrian crosses the center line when
| crossing. At the same time I find it very difficult to
| get too worked up when people blithely step in front of
| dump trucks (accident two weeks ago where even the city
| said there was absolutely nothing the city could have
| done to improve that intersection--the person just walked
| in front of the truck against every precaution).
| Arelius wrote:
| > I would fully support shutting down dozens of streets
| that cross-cross the city to through traffic and dedicate
| them to biking and pedestrians.
|
| I dream of this version of SF...
|
| Given the size of the city, and amount of pedestrians and
| general walkability, I'm always amazed at how hard it is
| to get a pedestrian street here and there.... Even the
| peninsula is starting to get them in a way we seem to not
| be able to.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| On street parking really is the worse as a pedestrian.
| Yes, you can technically cross at any intersection in
| Seattle, but cars are parked so close that they won't see
| you unless you poke your head out. A lot of pedestrian
| problems could be solved by getting rid of or severely
| restricting on street parking.
|
| Also, drugs are a huge issue. We have a lot of
| pedestrian/car accidents, something like 70% of them
| involves controlled substance abuse from either the
| driver or pedestrian (and much of the time, its the
| pedestrian). Fent really is a big problem.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| technically speaking the law is that you can't park 20
| feet from an intersection but in practice this is rarely
| enforced in Seattle. I feel like literally putting up
| plastic posts and paint blocking the 20 foot zone would
| do wonders for safety.
|
| it also does not help that people in Seattle love a
| rolling California stop, which is not legal. Combine that
| with the baseline level of driver distraction and I have
| gotten almost hit by inattentive drivers way too much.
| 0x457 wrote:
| > And yet jaywalking accounts for the majority of
| pedestrian deaths, despite being a fraction of the number
| of crossings.
|
| It's because some people think jumping out of bush at
| 11pm wearing all black to cross right in front of a car
| is a good idea.
| jajko wrote:
| Its just an assumption that all people on the roads are
| having 100% focus on whole surrounding situation, 100% of the
| time. If you drive a bit as the only parent in the car with
| 2+ small kids, you know that ain't true, and yes complex
| intersections are one of the worst places.
|
| Plus you have literal a-holes who ignore traffic rules on
| purpose, which in place where I live (Switzerland) is maybe
| 80% of the cyclists. I've had few near miss (5cm max) as a
| pedestrian where cyclist with red light zoomed through thick
| crowd crossing without even slowing down. Bear in mind that
| >=30kmh hit of pedestrian can easily end up in fatality or
| permanent disability, when wife worked on urgency in biggest
| hospital around here, there were some dead pedestrians from
| such collisions.
| bsimpson wrote:
| New York is probably the only place in the US where most of
| the drivers did not learn to drive here.
|
| It's the most international city in the US, and a
| disproportionate number of people who use the roads (taxis,
| delivery drivers, etc) grew up in places that have a traffic
| system very different that the US's. People in New York
| routinely run red lights, roll through crosswalks, ride in
| the shoulder - things that you might encounter in other
| countries, but are generally considered
| disrespectful/dangerous in the US. When so many drivers grew
| up driving in places that tolerate those behaviors (either in
| their home countries or as native New Yorkers), it creates a
| road culture that's very different than you'd expect in other
| parts of America.
|
| In other cities, you can take a "trust but verify" approach
| to traffic. Drivers will respect traffic lights. Pedestrians
| will cross where they're meant to. People will (only) use the
| lanes painted on the road. You have to be alert in case an
| outlier does something differently, but we generally consider
| those people selfish exceptions.
|
| The written rules and the practiced culture deviate immensely
| in New York. You can't just operate by the rules and expect
| that everyone else will too.
| asd33313131 wrote:
| In Vienna, which has very good public transport and a large
| walking population, there is a strong culture against
| jaywalking. Locals will wait at the crosswalk sign even on
| minor roads with no traffic. Having lived in New York, London,
| and other places, I've never seen anything like it.
| mywittyname wrote:
| I'm willing to bet drivers in Vienna also obey traffic
| signals/laws, which is also something you _cannot_ expect
| from NYC drivers.
| lxgr wrote:
| Not really.
|
| It's common enough that _not_ crossing at a red light as a
| pedestrian (with no cars in sight) can be a tell that you're
| potentially German :)
| dathinab wrote:
| >New Yorkers don't have a concept of "jaywalking"; it's just
| "walking."
|
| It's also not a word in the German language at all, it's just
| "crossing the road". If you do it safely grate, if you don't
| not grate and if there are children nearby unsafe road crossing
| is really something you shouldn't do, especially it it's just
| because you are to lazy to walk a small bit more (I think
| crossing a road close by a pedestrian crossing while you aren't
| allowed to cross it is also the only way it is illegal outside
| of the case of "you action counting as endangering you or
| others" (like actually endangering not some absurd twisting of
| definitions)).
| zahlman wrote:
| >like most New Yorkers, you walk several kilometers a day
|
| I don't think I can take this claim for granted.
| bragr wrote:
| Since they made this change in California last year, I cross
| where ever when it is safe and convenient. I'm surprised how big
| of difference it made to the convenience and speed of walking
| somewhere. No more waiting for 2 different lights just to get to
| the opposite corner.
| Gud wrote:
| As a veteran jaywalker, let me propose that you avoid crossing
| at junctions, where crossings are usually located, ideally
| cross at one leg, especially good if it's a one way street.
|
| Less traffic, fewer inputs/outputs to keep under observations.
| prophesi wrote:
| Where I live, just about all of the downtown streets are one-
| ways and it does wonders for getting around both on foot and
| in an automobile. Though the latter will be more punishing if
| you don't know the lay of the land, and there will be
| congestion near on-ramps during rush hour.
| metabagel wrote:
| I had to look this up. "Safe jaywalking" is legal in
| California, but if you risk a collision, you can be cited.
|
| ----------
|
| VC 21955. (a) Between adjacent intersections controlled by
| traffic control signal devices or by police officers,
| pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in
| a crosswalk.
|
| (b) (1) A peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing
| with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, shall
| not stop a pedestrian for a violation of subdivision (a) unless
| a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate
| danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device
| moving exclusively by human power.
|
| (2) This subdivision does not relieve a pedestrian from the
| duty of using due care for their safety.
|
| (3) This subdivision does not relieve a driver of a vehicle
| from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any
| pedestrian within the roadway.
| bragr wrote:
| >I cross where ever when it is _safe_ and convenient
| ssl-3 wrote:
| I do, too.
|
| But -- in California -- it remains illegal to do so in
| sections of roadway that are betwixt two traffic lights, no
| matter how safe an convenient it is.
|
| (We've got very similarly-worded restrictions here in Ohio,
| too, FWIW.)
| toast0 wrote:
| If it's illegal but you can't be stopped for it, it might
| not really be illegal?
|
| Also, there's not _that_ many adjacent controlled
| intersections. Driveways are intersections, too, and are
| rarely controlled.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| Ah. Sovcit logic.
|
| How...detestable.
| nomel wrote:
| > Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic
| control signal devices
|
| Does this mean diagonally? What's the distance to
| "adjacent"? One city block? Two? Does this mean that
| jaywalking is still practically illegal in most dense
| cities/downtown areas?
|
| The lack of clarity is pretty frustrating with many of
| these laws. I understand the practical need for wiggle
| room, but this almost seems like a trap! My naive
| interpretation is that police will still have plenty of
| opportunity to use jaywalking in the ways that the law
| was trying to prevent, especially in densely populated
| areas.
|
| I used to live on a street where crossing it legally
| meant a one mile trek, so it's appreciated, especially
| since I was warned once, but I now have no idea if it
| would be legal or not, since there was a light half mile
| in either direction.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| > An "intersection" is the area embraced within the
| prolongation of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then
| the lateral boundary lines of the roadways, of two
| highways which join one another at approximately right
| angles or the area within which vehicles traveling upon
| different highways joining at any other angle may come in
| conflict.
|
| https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySec
| tio...
| nomel wrote:
| My question was specifically about the "adjacent" part of
| "adjacent intersections". That link explains
| "intersections". What does it mean when those are
| "adjacent"?
| ssl-3 wrote:
| Aye. I can't find that part spelled out anywhere for CA.
| (There's probably case law on the topic, but IANAL.)
|
| My lay interpretation is, I think, the same as yours: In
| order to avoid doing illegal things, one would have to
| walk a mile to cross the road in your example.
|
| And as a lay jaywalker: I'm absolutely certain that I
| would never do that; I'd simply cross the road when when
| it was safe to do so. (I'd also like to hope that I would
| have the time, money, and opportunity to have a turn in
| front of a judge for any resulting citation because this
| kind of result is absolute horseshit.)
| sigwinch28 wrote:
| >waiting for 2 different lights just to get to the opposite
| corner.
|
| A solution sometimes seen in London is a "Pedestrian Scramble",
| where pedestrians are explicitly given full (and even diagonal)
| access to a junction with all other traffic stopped.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_scramble
| mywittyname wrote:
| In Seattle, they call these "all walks" or officially, "all
| way walks." I love them, since I don't feel like I have to
| watch out for drivers making left turns.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| It was de-facto legal to begin with. The only people who were
| ever hurt by this law were the people who insisted on abiding by
| the law beyond the point of absurdity.
|
| I appreciate that this is one less crime the average person
| commits every day that a capricious enforcer can make a big deal
| of but the flip side is that this reduces the competitive
| advantage of not being law abiding to the point of absurdity and
| your own detriment.
| jplrssn wrote:
| Seems to me like greater damage was being done to the people
| getting stopped and searched on the pretext of jaywalking. From
| the article:
|
| > The Legal Aid Society called the legislation long overdue.
| The non-profit organization, which provides free legal
| representation to New Yorkers who cannot afford a lawyer, said
| police for decades have used the violation as a pretext to
| stop, question and frisk residents - especially those of color.
| standardUser wrote:
| First, let's not forget that jaywalking is one of those "crimes"
| that is used as a pretense by police to harass people, usually
| young people and people of color.
|
| Second, as a veteran jaywalker, my rule of thumb is that if a car
| has to hit their breaks even a little, or otherwise alter their
| trajectory, you're doing it wrong. The goal should be smooth
| movement for all.
|
| Third, just because someone else is jaywalking does not mean you
| should follow them! Always asses your own path because someone
| else may be timing it differently.
| ferrous69 wrote:
| > if a car has to hit their breaks even a little, or otherwise
| alter their trajectory, you're doing it wrong.
|
| this is basically NYC law already, including pedestrian
| interactions
| havblue wrote:
| One time when I jaywalked in NYC I could have sworn that a
| cab, who was a half block away, accelerated when he saw me
| crossing the street. My impression has always been that
| people hate having their time wasted.
| jowdones wrote:
| There's also waiting 1-2 minutes for green light on a
| pedestrian semaphore while the street is entirely empty of
| cars. If no cops are in sight I definitely cross the street.
| Usually one or two people get encouraged and also cross but
| there's always the sticklers who would wait the end of the
| world if not given the green light.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| > First, let's not forget that jaywalking is one of those
| "crimes" that is used as a pretense by police to harass people,
| usually young people and people of color.
|
| "Walking while black"
|
| Recently saw a courtroom video where a black man was being
| charged with marijuana possession. The reason for the initial
| stop was jaywalking, but the cop didn't even ticket him for the
| jaywalking, just used it as a justification for performing a
| search.
|
| Judge threw the case out. Scolded the cop for clearly just
| wanting a reason to search a black man, evidenced by the lack
| of a ticket for the jaywalking.
|
| And of course, it's just wild to me that in some states, you
| can get thrown in jail for YEARS for simple possession of a
| single nugget of marijuana, while in Oregon, my grocery store
| receipts literally have ads for marijuana dispensaries on the
| back.
| elif wrote:
| Yea the herd mentality is why jaywalking is unethical. I've
| witnessed someone try to cross early, triggering literally ~20
| people to follow, only for the light to change and everyone
| collectively realized they had no right of way and stepped
| back.
|
| It's easy to see how this could result in tragedy.
|
| Germany, Japan, there is strict social compliance so it feels
| right anyway.
| atq2119 wrote:
| It's a bit more subtle than that.
|
| In Germany, crossing at a red light is very frowned upon.
| Many Germans even wait at a red pedestrian light in the
| middle of the night when there's zero traffic.
|
| Crossing streets in places without pedestrian lights or
| designated crossings is very common, though, and I believe
| usually legal. (I certainly haven't heard of anybody being
| fined for it.)
| fooker wrote:
| > Germany, Japan, there is strict social compliance
|
| There is quite a bit of historical evidence for this being
| really bad for society.
| caekislove wrote:
| I don't know about ALL of Japan, but in Tokyo, pedestrians
| frequently ignore red lights and seeing cars with green
| lights waiting while a large group of jaywalkers is crossing
| in front of them is not an uncommon sight.
| abeppu wrote:
| > First, let's not forget that jaywalking is one of those
| "crimes" that is used as a pretense by police to harass people,
| usually young people and people of color.
|
| But let's also not pretend that decriminalizing jaywalking ends
| this harassment. In 2023, California decriminalized jaywalking
| when it's not dangerous to cross. But police have still used
| jaywalking as a pretense for stopping (and assaulting) people.
| https://missionlocal.org/2024/09/sf-violent-jaywalking-incid...
| mslate wrote:
| Yes yes, the person outside of a car must provide deference to
| the car owner. Poor people serve the rich.
| eikenberry wrote:
| It's not about class, it's about staying alive. Cars win any
| encounter, hands down. My rule of crossing streets is to
| assume I am invisible and the drivers are not aware of my
| existence. This is, IMO, the only safe rule to follow when
| crossing the paths of fast moving, multi-ton machines with
| only minimal requirements made of the driver.
| hifromwork wrote:
| But we're talking about writing laws here. For example:
|
| >with only minimal requirements made of the driver.
|
| could easily be changed by changing the requirements.
| pokeymcsnatch wrote:
| No law is going to physically protect you from a 2 ton
| hunk of steel.
| mc32 wrote:
| Traveling in Germany where there is a culture of biking and
| walking I found that jaywalking is never the less very much
| frowned upon by regular people and they see it as a
| transgression of norms.
| mimischi wrote:
| As Germans like to say: the rules are the rules!
| felurx wrote:
| That heavily depends on where you are. I can't speak for
| everywhere, but in the cities I'm in it's fairly common to
| cross a red light or a road you're not supposed to cross.
| acdha wrote:
| One major confound is how the streets are designed and
| driving is prioritized. In the United States, many areas were
| redesigned in the 20th century under the assumption that
| nobody mattered as much as drivers so you have wide streets
| with long distances between crosswalks, short crossing
| signals, and long light cycles. Unsurprisingly many people
| jaywalk instead of walking half a mile or waiting so long. In
| contrast, if the area is reasonably designed it's much more
| reasonable to use the streets as designed and it's more
| reasonable to expect people to follow the rules.
|
| I think that principle of respect shows up a lot in
| infrastructure. When it seems like it was designed for people
| to enjoy using you get much better results than the quasi-
| penal school of public architecture which is sadly common.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Second, as a veteran jaywalker, my rule of thumb is that if a
| car has to hit their breaks even a little, or otherwise alter
| their trajectory, you're doing it wrong."
|
| You're doing it illegally in most places. If you imped the flow
| of traffic with the right of way, that's still an offense in
| most places. The article isn't clear if it's still a violation
| in NYC, but I bet it is.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| I believe that was their point in calling themselves a
| veteran jaywalker. If it were a proper legal way of crossing
| given local laws, it is not jaywalking.
| johnea wrote:
| hat's all very conscientious. You should also consider:
|
| Forth, how many more people will be run over in NYC now?
| mncharity wrote:
| > rule of thumb is [...] trajectory [...] The goal should be
| smooth movement for all.
|
| A more restrictive one is avoiding driver cognitive load and
| distraction. City driving can be exhausting. And attention
| budget allocated to one concern, is less available for that
| other thing that's about to unexpectedly bite.
|
| > just because someone else is jaywalking does not mean you
| should follow them!
|
| Another is attending to crossing as broadcast group
| communication. Manhattan pedestrians waiting at a light, _will_
| , quite reasonably, cue on the motion of others. Thus I might
| do a red-light crossing at a sprint-and-jog, solely to avoid
| misleading others with a "people are starting/walking across
| now" cue. Especially with tourists, and anyone with attention
| prioritized elsewhere.
|
| Another is to threshold on benefit. Judgement errors _will_ be
| made, so gate on the current case being worth that. There are
| people I can 't comfortably walk with, because for low-payoff
| diagonizations, or avoiding a moment of red-light repose, they
| fountain social cognitive load with abandon. The pedestrian
| equivalent of car high-acceleration and speeding for negligible
| marginal progress.
| bko wrote:
| I love hearing about this magical world where police harass
| random people for no reason. My experience in the city is
| police looking the other way when they shouldn't be. Everything
| from someone camping out in the middle of the sidewalk, illegal
| drug use in public, public urination and hopping turnstiles,
| just to list a few.
|
| As a culture, we're pro jaywalking, which is fine, it should be
| legalized. You bare the risk entirely yourself if you choose to
| jaywalk. But let's not pretend like there is some overly strict
| police force that loves cracking skulls on any and every
| matter.
| sixo wrote:
| You hear about it a lot because it's real and happens
| constantly, esp in past decades
| NBJack wrote:
| > I love hearing about this magical world where police harass
| random people for no reason.
|
| Nothing random, magical, or pretend about it in the states.
| https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice/race-and-
| criminal...
|
| Talk to folks that don't share your skin tone. Make some
| friends. Ask them about their experiences, then judge for
| yourself.
| thegrim33 wrote:
| The dichotomy is pretty interesting to me, given that most major
| cities in the country have been running high-publicity programs
| for the last decade to do everything possible to reduce car-
| related deaths, especially protecting pedestrians and bicyclists.
| (Cities like NYC and Seattle call it "vision zero", a vision of
| zero serious traffic injuries/deaths). They work to separate
| pedestrians and bicyclists from traffic, slow cars down with
| "traffic calming measures", lower speed limits, and so on.
|
| Those stated goals seem, to me, to clash with the idea of now
| making it up to people's discretion to cross roads wherever and
| whenever they want, rather than at dedicated, marked,
| predictable, traffic crossings equipped with signal lights that
| tell cars and pedestrians who has the right of way.
|
| I'm curious in X years if the data will or will not show more
| pedestrians got hit by cars following this change.
| jmugan wrote:
| Could be. Or maybe drivers will get used to people popping up
| everywhere and will therefore drive with more concentration.
| I'm not sure, like you say, it will be interesting to see the
| data.
| xutopia wrote:
| There is a question of critical mass that you see in cities
| that are built around the concept of pedestrians first. Cars go
| slower, give right of way to pedestrians and generally don't
| drive as aggressively as we see in most North American cities.
|
| In Europe you see plenty of places that are pedestrian first
| and the car drivers are expected to act differently as a
| result. Something similar happens in Amsterdam where it is a
| cyclist first city. Cyclists expect right of way and cars are
| few and far between.
|
| So long as you go about thinking of this in terms of car first
| as a de facto part of life you won't understand how good it
| could be with less cars.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| If you are at a crosswalk and there is no car in sight, it's
| dumb to wait for the proper light.
| tootie wrote:
| It's more of an acceptance of reality. Pedestrians in NYC cross
| however they want and police only ever intervene if they're
| doing something excessively dangerous (which I believe is still
| illegal) or if they're looking for a excuse to harass someone.
| It's the latter they are trying to eliminate. This will likely
| have no impact on road safety and slightly reduce the number of
| people getting hassled by police.
|
| There's also the balance of power that NYC is actually mostly
| pedestrian. Anything that empowers pedestrians and inhibits
| cars is a net win for freedom of movement.
| gen220 wrote:
| Partially it's because this is a false dichotomy. The most
| efficient and safe system isn't something that erects permanent
| barriers between pedestrians and cars - because a system like
| this creates ugly cities and undesirable walking, cycling, and
| driving conditions - it's something that allows them to coexist
| safely, generally by making them slower, more visible, and more
| predictable.
|
| I walk/run, drive, and cycle in NYC. In my view, the way NYC
| works _in most intersections and roads_ is pretty close to
| maximally efficient. And it generally gets better over time,
| although it has occasionally gotten worse in the name of
| safety.
|
| The things that make it that way include (1) mostly one-way
| roads, which makes jaywalking significantly easier and safer
| (2) mostly single-lane or dual-lane roads (3) well-tuned
| traffic lights with relatively brief cycles (4) relatively low
| speed limits that are brutally enforced with speed traps (5) an
| abundance of red light cameras.
|
| The least safe parts of the city are those with more than 2
| lanes of traffic, especially if it's bi-directional, and those
| with really poorly designed cycling infrastructure. My pet
| peeve roads are the ones that look like this:
|
| | sidewalk | cycle lane | parking spots | road |
|
| e.g. Grand St in Williamsburg, because this design makes jay-
| walking extremely dangerous. and it makes cyclists go faster
| than they otherwise-would, because of the (occasionally-enough-
| to-be-dangerous false) sense of being insulated from both
| pedestrians and cars.
|
| The other major source of risks, again IME, are cyclists going
| counter-traffic on one-way roads, and people on electric-
| assisted bikes in general traveling >20mph.
| jedberg wrote:
| I was in Morocco this summer, and for the most part, there is
| no separation between where motorbikes can ride and pedestrians
| can walk. It's totally intermixed.
|
| At first I was concerned, but then I realized it's actually a
| lot safe. The motorbikes were cautious because there could be a
| pedestrian at any turn. And the pedestrians were cautious
| because there could be a motorbike at any moment.
|
| Didn't see a single accident or even any near misses.
| barrenko wrote:
| Not policing is the latest SF export coming worldwide.
| jmugan wrote:
| I remember visiting California in the 1990s and was amazed to see
| my California friends waiting patiently at the light, looking at
| me like I was uncivilized because I just crossed the street
| whenever it was safe.
| macintux wrote:
| When I was visiting Finland in 1990, my friend told me the
| police were so bored there that jaywalking was very likely to
| result in a ticket.
| lysace wrote:
| Current day Sweden: People cross tend to cross the street
| whenever it feels safe, unless there's some mom/dad with young
| kids in tow nearby. Then it's polite to wait for the light to
| turn green. We often have very little traffic on our streets
| though, and they are often not very wide.
|
| It's technically illegal to jaywalk but not punishable unless
| you manage to cause a traffic accident, somehow. I like these
| pragmatic laws.
| Schiendelman wrote:
| In the United States, having laws like that results in
| discriminatory policing (see many threads here). Probably
| less than an issue in a country that doesn't have such issues
| with race.
| lysace wrote:
| > It's technically illegal to jaywalk but not punishable
| unless you manage to cause a traffic accident, somehow. I
| like these pragmatic laws.
|
| Has this been tested?
| Schiendelman wrote:
| You may be responding to the wrong comment.
| lysace wrote:
| No, I did not. I quoted a part of my own post to make it
| very clear exactly what I was talking about, but
| apparently that backfired.
| jedberg wrote:
| As far as I know, NYC is unique in that pedestrians do _not_ have
| the right of way. Everywhere else you must legally stop for a
| pedestrian but in NYC you don 't. (edit, since people seem
| confused: This doesn't mean you can run them over. It just means
| you don't have to stop if you are going to block their path.
| Everywhere else, you have to stop if you are going to block a
| pedestrian's path, no matter where that pedestrian is.)
|
| They have to do this or people would just block all traffic all
| the time.
|
| So this really is just to stop racial profiling. It's really not
| going to change much in the day to day goings on in NYC.
| gosub100 wrote:
| Nowhere do you have the right to drive into a human being,
| whether there's laws against jaywalking or not.
| jedberg wrote:
| That's not what that means. It means you're allowed to block
| their path. Everywhere else you must stop if you will block
| the path of a person. In NYC you do not.
|
| Of course you can't run them down.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| The Last Clear Chance Doctrine (in tort law, not criminal law),
| which is pretty widely accepted, is that regardless of right of
| way, if you are able to avoid an accident, then you must.
|
| Having the right of way matters less than the ability to avoid
| an accident. If you plow into a pedestrian that you saw from
| three blocks away, you will absolutely be considered liable
| civilly since you had a clear chance to avoid a collision.
|
| The general rule in almost every vehicle code is that having
| the right of way does not relieve you of the obligation to do
| everything reasonable to avoid collisions and injuries.
| sehugg wrote:
| Good riddance. Crosswalks at intersections are nearly obsolete
| due to the thick A-pillars in modern cars. I would rather have
| mid-block crosswalks with warning lights and traffic calming
| devices.
| jklinger410 wrote:
| > Crosswalks at intersections are nearly obsolete due to the
| thick A-pillars in modern cars.
|
| What?
| consteval wrote:
| They mean people standing up are invisible to cars in a lot
| of perspectives.
| maxwellg wrote:
| A-pillars are the pillars of a car that support the
| windshield and the front of the roof. They've gotten bigger
| in recent years - which reduces the visibility of
| pedestrians, cyclists, and other cars. Drivers can't see
| through pillars. Big pillars are safer for the driver in case
| of a collision or a rollover, but paradoxically also makes
| that car more dangerous for everyone else on the road. I
| don't think they make crosswalks obsolete, but crossing the
| road is more dangerous today than it was 50 years ago.
|
| https://chi.streetsblog.org/2022/06/08/pickups-suvs-are-
| driv....
| jklinger410 wrote:
| Yeah okay, I understand pedestrian visibility. But cross
| walks have nothing to do with that really?
|
| Like it's a place where you (usually) stop and when you are
| stopped, pedestrians can go.
|
| I don't see how jaywalking would be better than a dedicated
| place where pedestrians are expected to be. Thick a-frames
| or not.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > But cross walks have nothing to do with that really?
|
| The posted article mentioned accidents specifically at
| cross walks.
|
| > The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that
| drivers of SUVs, pickups, vans, and minivans are
| "substantially more likely" than car drivers to hit
| _pedestrians when making turns_ ,
|
| The reasoning though is mainly speculation. I've found
| that minivans offer exceptional visibility. So it could
| be as simple as people who buy SUVs, minivans, and
| pickups are just worse drivers than those in coupes and
| sedans.
|
| My theory is that people just don't consider pedestrians
| when making left turns at intersections with cross walks.
| Instead, they focus on oncoming traffic and commit to a
| turn before looking at where they are going.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Your citation blames the _size of vehicles_ for the
| increase in danger, not A pillars specifically. And the
| demonstration was how many children could be sitting in
| front of a pickup truck before the driver could see them.
|
| > "They are larger, heavier and _higher up_ from the road
| than smaller cars and create blind spots that make it
| challenging for drivers to see vulnerable road users like
| pedestrians and cyclists,"
|
| I drive a car with enormous A pillars (coupe version of a
| convertible) and never have issues seeing the children
| playing in the street because of it. Likely because most 8
| year olds would be at eye level with me.
|
| A modern F150 however, an entire car could be obscured by
| the long, high hood of those.
| maxwellg wrote:
| You're right - here's a better source
| https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2249 and
| commentary
| https://www.autotrader.ca/editorial/20220510/large-
| forward-b...
| Ferret7446 wrote:
| It's quite the opposite isn't it? Drivers don't have to see
| pedestrians; they stop at red lights, and pedestrians cross
| when they get a walk signal.
| giantg2 wrote:
| It's hard to tell from the article - is it still a violation if
| you don't yield to traffic with the right of way? If so, that's
| how jaywalking works in the vast majority of places. If you cross
| and imped the flow of traffic with the right of way, you are
| jaywalking and will be ticketed for it. This is just standard in
| most places.
| leecarraher wrote:
| is there a difference, legally, regarding vehicular involuntary
| manslaughter, between hitting someone who is jaywalking and
| someone who is not. Example, a person walks into a 65 mph
| thoroughfare after a curve, since they are no longer in the
| commencement of a crime, does that make the act tantamount to
| hitting someone in a crosswalk?
| jklinger410 wrote:
| I will still be using the cross walks everywhere I go. Because
| there's no shortcut across the street that is worth me stopping
| traffic or getting hit by a car.
|
| Jaywalking is for selfish and impatient people who are bad at
| assessing risk.
|
| Unless the street is completely empty, I guess.
| acureau wrote:
| As someone who has never lived in a city this is strange to me.
| I live in a relatively dense part of Louisiana, but around here
| you couldn't walk at all without jaywalking. There aren't even
| sidewalks in a lot of places. You just walk along the side of
| the road.
| jklinger410 wrote:
| Well if the government doesn't provide infrastructure for you
| to use, then you have no choice but to jaywalk.
|
| What I think is crazy is all of the cities that just don't
| build sidewalks. I understand in certain rural areas, but
| yeah, many midwestern and southern cities are downright
| hostile to pedestrians.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-30 23:01 UTC)