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."
>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)).
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.
>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.
Amsterdam is just like New York (New Amsterdam!) in that pedestrians (and bikes) cross wherever they like. Next up: in Amsterdam most bikes and pedestrians will not wait for a red light on small crossings when they can see there is no oncoming traffic. Technically illegal but I've never heard of anyone being fined. No harm no foul. But I guess the large intersections in New York make it trickier to estimate whether that's safe to do.
To join the voice to the other non-US folks, in the Southern Europe no one cares, we just cross the road regardless the colour.
Usually it is only respected in high traffic roads, unless one wants to play frogger in real life.
And while there are technically fines, like 10 €, in practice the police has more usefull things to worry about and unless you get an officer having a bad day and someone has to pay for it, they won't care.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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...
>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.
Generalize it more:
"If anyone else has to go out of their way to alter their trajectory to avoid you you're doing it wrong."
This applies to just about every road interaction between any two users regardless of type.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe there's some negative American exceptionalism here (the idea that what works in other countries can't work in the US because reasons) but many other countries have no jaywalking laws or much more lax versions (e.g. only applies to motorways) and have much lower pedestrian deaths than the US. Road safety is a cultural thing and relates to how unequal a person's rights are based on their mode of transport.
Growing up in the UK, which is car-centric but not as much as the US, jaywalking was an alien term and concept. I remember being confused by the concept when I first visited the US. In the UK there be many crossing with or without lights and regular traffic islands for pedestrians. You get used to crossing the road without signal controlled crossing. And yet the vehicle death rate in the UK is 4 times lower per 100,000 population than the US, 2 times lower per distance driven and the pedestrian death rate is 5 times lower.
>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 sorts of measures have been shown to have negative impact on people's behaviour.
If drivers think vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians are segregated away, they'll drive at higher speeds.
Pedestrians may start to assume that it's always safe for them to walk in certain places without looking.
On the other hand, if you have a system in place where people know that traffic does mix, there will be a lot more caution from all road users.
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.
In NYC it's not so much the cars that are the problem as the bikes. I've never ever had a problem jaywalking to my heart's content in NYC, and I've done it lots and lots. But when those bike lanes started sprouting up everywhere suddenly it became much more dangerous because it's very easy to forget about the bikes, especially bikes going the opposite way on one-way streets.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
There is one situation where some kind of enforcement is needed: crowds of people ignoring pedestrian signals, and flooding across crosswalks continuously. Then the traffic never gets a chance to move. Cars cannot safely crawl or nudge their way through the throng of people, who feel the protection of collective security.
One might argue that such large crowds are an indication that the road should be fully pedestrianized - perhaps by time-of-day, or only for specific shopping holidays (e.g. Black Friday, Xmas). The alternative for these peaks is often manual control of people and vehicles by a police/traffic/community officer, like a school crossing).
Perhaps there could be some critical crossings where there is a legally enforceable 'double-red' pedestrian signal.
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.
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.
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.
There was a law passed in NYC a couple of years ago requiring drivers not to enter a crosswalk if pedestrians are in a crosswalk. I have no clue what you're talking about.
In Hong Kong and Mainland China, the sidewalks are railed off everywhere except the crosswalk, presumably to prevent the anarchy that occurs when pedestrians are allowed to freely cross the road anywhere.
A little jaywalking is good, a lot of jaywalking renders the road unusable to cars. You don't have to be pro-car or anti-transit to recognize the inefficiency in having roads that are uselessly congested with erratic foot traffic.
I’m staying in Manila, Philippines for a while now, and road crossing is wild here. You can have a dozen of people staying at a marked uncontrolled crossing for minutes, yielding to traffic. I usually cross anyway whenever there’s an opening in the traffic, and people look at me like I’m an idiot and continue to stay. I have no idea how they manage to cross the roads at all here.
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.
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.
One consequence of legalizing jaywalking, may be increased prevention by fences and barriers.
Low railings may be jumped by an agile adult, but they stop children, elderly, wheelchairs, pushchairs, suitcases or people with heavy shopping.
Divided highways may get (more) high fences in the central reservation to deter jaywalking - but of course the frustrated locals will eventually cut convenient holes.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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?
Pedestrians are barred (by law) from limited access highways in my state (and I think in most states). I can't readily think of any 65 mph highway that isn't limited access.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Some comments were deferred for faster rendering.
gxonatano|1 year ago
dathinab|1 year ago
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)).
asd33313131|1 year ago
nobody9999|1 year ago
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.
speleding|1 year ago
pjmlp|1 year ago
Usually it is only respected in high traffic roads, unless one wants to play frogger in real life.
And while there are technically fines, like 10 €, in practice the police has more usefull things to worry about and unless you get an officer having a bad day and someone has to pay for it, they won't care.
zahlman|1 year ago
I don't think I can take this claim for granted.
atkailash|1 year ago
[deleted]
standardUser|1 year ago
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.
Sohcahtoa82|1 year ago
"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.
mncharity|1 year ago
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.
mc32|1 year ago
abeppu|1 year ago
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...
potato3732842|1 year ago
Generalize it more:
"If anyone else has to go out of their way to alter their trajectory to avoid you you're doing it wrong."
This applies to just about every road interaction between any two users regardless of type.
elif|1 year ago
It's easy to see how this could result in tragedy.
Germany, Japan, there is strict social compliance so it feels right anyway.
ferrous69|1 year ago
this is basically NYC law already, including pedestrian interactions
mslate|1 year ago
jowdones|1 year ago
bko|1 year ago
[deleted]
johnea|1 year ago
Forth, how many more people will be run over in NYC now?
bubaumba|1 year ago
giantg2|1 year ago
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.
2024user|1 year ago
bragr|1 year ago
metabagel|1 year ago
----------
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.
Gud|1 year ago
Less traffic, fewer inputs/outputs to keep under observations.
sigwinch28|1 year ago
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
cryptonector|1 year ago
You used to comply? Don't comply with dumb laws and rules -- it encourages them to pile on more.
thegrim33|1 year ago
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.
gen220|1 year ago
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.
xutopia|1 year ago
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.
tootie|1 year ago
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.
altacc|1 year ago
Growing up in the UK, which is car-centric but not as much as the US, jaywalking was an alien term and concept. I remember being confused by the concept when I first visited the US. In the UK there be many crossing with or without lights and regular traffic islands for pedestrians. You get used to crossing the road without signal controlled crossing. And yet the vehicle death rate in the UK is 4 times lower per 100,000 population than the US, 2 times lower per distance driven and the pedestrian death rate is 5 times lower.
daveoc64|1 year ago
Those sorts of measures have been shown to have negative impact on people's behaviour.
If drivers think vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians are segregated away, they'll drive at higher speeds.
Pedestrians may start to assume that it's always safe for them to walk in certain places without looking.
On the other hand, if you have a system in place where people know that traffic does mix, there will be a lot more caution from all road users.
jedberg|1 year ago
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.
cryptonector|1 year ago
jmugan|1 year ago
dist-epoch|1 year ago
jmugan|1 year ago
lysace|1 year ago
It's technically illegal to jaywalk but not punishable unless you manage to cause a traffic accident, somehow. I like these pragmatic laws.
macintux|1 year ago
olliej|1 year ago
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|1 year ago
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.
dominicrose|1 year ago
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.
leptons|1 year ago
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.
throwaway313373|1 year ago
Why is it safer?
Dilettante_|1 year ago
mikhailfranco|1 year ago
There is one situation where some kind of enforcement is needed: crowds of people ignoring pedestrian signals, and flooding across crosswalks continuously. Then the traffic never gets a chance to move. Cars cannot safely crawl or nudge their way through the throng of people, who feel the protection of collective security.
One might argue that such large crowds are an indication that the road should be fully pedestrianized - perhaps by time-of-day, or only for specific shopping holidays (e.g. Black Friday, Xmas). The alternative for these peaks is often manual control of people and vehicles by a police/traffic/community officer, like a school crossing).
Perhaps there could be some critical crossings where there is a legally enforceable 'double-red' pedestrian signal.
giantg2|1 year ago
jedberg|1 year ago
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.
dghlsakjg|1 year ago
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.
gosub100|1 year ago
7speter|1 year ago
more_corn|1 year ago
waswaswas|1 year ago
A little jaywalking is good, a lot of jaywalking renders the road unusable to cars. You don't have to be pro-car or anti-transit to recognize the inefficiency in having roads that are uselessly congested with erratic foot traffic.
notpushkin|1 year ago
potato3732842|1 year ago
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|1 year ago
> 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.
mikhailfranco|1 year ago
Low railings may be jumped by an agile adult, but they stop children, elderly, wheelchairs, pushchairs, suitcases or people with heavy shopping.
Divided highways may get (more) high fences in the central reservation to deter jaywalking - but of course the frustrated locals will eventually cut convenient holes.
94b45eb4|1 year ago
tlonny|1 year ago
tsimionescu|1 year ago
alexanderchr|1 year ago
hnbad|1 year ago
matheusmoreira|1 year ago
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.
sehugg|1 year ago
Ferret7446|1 year ago
jklinger410|1 year ago
What?
glr02|1 year ago
leecarraher|1 year ago
sokoloff|1 year ago
calini|1 year ago
zjp|1 year ago
gosub100|1 year ago
IshKebab|1 year ago
readthenotes1|1 year ago
How is that broken?
moomin|1 year ago
[deleted]
julio1909x|1 year ago
[deleted]
barrenko|1 year ago
jklinger410|1 year ago
Jaywalking is for selfish and impatient people who are bad at assessing risk.
Unless the street is completely empty, I guess.
acureau|1 year ago
AStonesThrow|1 year ago
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.
maxwellg|1 year ago
ryandrake|1 year ago
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|1 year ago