Then it should be.
It is also a pedestrians responsibility to avoid cars doing perfectly normal thing like using the road.
Likewise its inappropriate to blame the car driver and make everyone in the world adjust their behavior.
(I'm thinking of a road near where I went to college where I would have had to walk a solid ten minutes to get to a crosswalk and back. Most people just had cars, but I didn't, and I had to cross to get to the mall.)
Right, because screw poor, disabled, elderly, children, international students (most of whom don't drive when they arrive here), and so on.
You know what, fine. The way pedestrians will "figure it out themselves" is by simply banning cars from cities, because, apparently, there can be no compromise.
As your response indicates, asking the drivers to go slow and look out for people in the suburbs is apparently too much. (I guess you also oppose spending money on constructing sidewalks, because why can't everyone get a car instead? – but that's beside the point of the argument).
Saying "get a car, or GTFO" is the entitlement I was talking about.
You can try to ban cars from cities but of course, I would not support it and I hope it be challenged.
"Just go slow" is in itself an entitlement too.
When an accident happens, it is the pedestrian who will die. Driving is a privilege that comes with the responsibility to avoid this.
Your position: nah.
----------------
Asking to go slow and pay attention to the road where pedestrians can be is not "entitlement", it's the law, it's the traffic rules, and it's your responsibility as a driver that you volunteer for in exchange for getting the privilege of driving.
Anyway, "just go slow" is not comparable to "just stop being poor / unable to drive". I hope you can see the difference.
It also the law for a pedestrian to not jaywalk, or walk on areas of a highway or road where pedestrian traffic is not permitted. And if its not the law then it should be the law.
Anyway, I acknowledge that not all people will agree and I expect both side to fight for their cause. I just hope they don't win.
Are you here to be provide the opinion that pedestrians need to dodge companies doing their alpha testing on public streets?
And why the fuck should jaywalking be illegal? I’m sitting in my car. You’re on foot. Why should I have some almighty right to drive around without looking for you?
Streets are for all citizens, and crossing streets should be safe for everyone, even distracted pedestrians. It’s 2019. Crossing the street should not be a life-or-death proposition.
It’s ridiculous that capitalism gives us battery powered scooters to rent by the trip, and rockets that can land themselves on a barge, but somehow the idea that we can make streets safe for cyclists and pedestrians is too difficult or ideologically impossible.
Well, if you look outside of America, you can see that other countries get this right.
Because it can endanger the car driver too.
Yes streets is for all citizen, including for car driver.
Yes thats why designated crossing place is made, to make it safer for the pedestrians.
>Well, if you look outside of America, you can see that other countries get this right
Sure, from your perspective. But from mine, America is the right one. Even in America sadly they don't enforce it as much as I like.
We barely have sidewalks in most places. And you suggest outlawing "jaywalking"?
And all of that is happening on taxpayers' dime.
Don't get me wrong, I'm driving everywhere too - but I'm taking advantage of the infrastructure my non-driving friends have chipped in for (some of them - gasp - walk to work in SF!).
Sorry, but your perspective is not American. Just entitled.
Pedestrians should not be allowed to walk anywhere they want, but the penalty for an infraction should not be death.
And why not the other way around? What is it about driving a vehicle that should give one priority?
I don't necessarily disagree with your vision. But in practice, that means blocking off cities for cars. Drive all you want on the highways, nobody will restrict you there.
The idea that drivers should not be "restricted" by pedestrians is the entitlement I am talking about.
The idea that pedestrian to have priority, is in itself entitlement too.
The idea is that in a vehicle-pedestrian collision, the driver is going to be unharmed, and the pedestrian is likely to die.
The idea is that cars already have plenty of pedestrian-free infrastructure: the highway system, but pedestrians are nearly always forced to share the road with cars in the US (sidewalks are disconnected by roads).
The idea is that roads and sidewalks are constructed with tax money, and the pedestrians are not getting their fair share. A lot of people drive because, as you noted, they have to, not as preference.
The idea is that the cities don't belong to people with cars, and the convenience of moving around in a vehicle should not come at the expense of lives of pedestrians.
The idea is that if you are not on a highway, you go slow and look out for people.
Is that last thing too hard to grasp?
Your response indicate that these are too much.
Car driver pay for the tax as well.
>The idea is that the cities don't belong to people with cars
Then that need to be changed. The benefit for pedestrians should not come at the expense of vehicle.
Is that too hard to grasp?
Your inability to put yourself in someone else's shoes is staggering.
Yes, my whole point is that it is too much for some people.
Cars aren't an option for everyone. As for "walking in appropriate places" and using buses - how many times do I need to say that these simply don't exist in most of the US (are you from here?).
>The benefit for pedestrians should not come at the expense of vehicle. Is that too hard to grasp?
Frankly, it is. What expense (to an inanimate object) are you talking about? Slowing down and paying attention to the road? Cry me a river.
The expenses for pedestrians is risking lives just to get to places.
Yes, it is hard to grasp that you think it's comparable.
Again: we aren't living in your fantasy land where sidewalks and pedestrian crossings and public transportation is available. Saying "use those or drive" is not an option for people who can't drive. The killed woman was one of them.
Then the solution is to make these exist.
>What expense (to an inanimate object) are you talking about?
Yes, slowing down for one.
>Cry me a river
Your response indicate, inability to put yourself in someone else's shoes. It maybe be unimportant for you but not for others.
Again: if those are not available, then the fix is to make it available.
Surely "not slowing down" and "not dying" are not on the same scale of importance, don't you think?
>Again: if those are not available, then the fix is to make it available.
Sure! If I could wave a magic wand and make sidewalks appear, I would. Do you have one?
And between now and that magic time (which, mind you, might never come in the US), you're saying that pedestrians should die because tough luck, get a car.
Meanwhile, it is entirely within your power to go slower and be a cautious driver (as is your responsibility).
Let's have a deal: I'll work on making sidewalks happen. Until then, you do your best to avoid killing people (go slow / pay attention), because non-drivers literally don't have any other option other than being on roadways to get to places.
Typical example: going to a movie theater requires walking on highway frontage[1].
You might say, don't go to a movie theater, but that's just one example; you can't walk to DPS in that city either (nor take a bus there, at least when I lived there). The bus can only drop you off on the feeder road (where cars go 60mph, and no sidewalk).
Do you understand my point? I accept the solution, but it's not feasible in the short term. We all have to compromise until it happens (which might be never, given how these things work).
[1]https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Harvey+Road+%26+Scarlett+O'H...
Surely if the pedestrian does not walk at inappropriate place, less likely they would be dying.
Nah, If anything I would petition on making less sidewalks and more roads.
I don't have all the solutions for people who refuse/can't find a way to use vehicle. Thats for those people to figure out.
Who gets to define what is an "inappropriate place"?
Pretty much anywhere in the word crossing the road like that woman did would be "appropriate".
You just want to define traffic laws to your maximum convenience, all else be damned.
Clearly, you see nothing wrong with that: bringing harm to people if you can get away with that.
Something tells me you won't think it's fair if someone else gets to decide rules in a way that benefits them at your expense.
Whoever has the power in charge.
>Pretty much anywhere in the word crossing the road like that woman did would be "appropriate".
Then it should not be, I don't have to necessarily agree with whatever other country did.
>Something tells me you won't think it's fair if someone else gets to decide rules in a way that benefits them at your expense
Life is not fair. I will either fight the rules, try to change the rule or find a way to adapt the rules to benefit me.
Which is the same as what you are trying to do, trying to change the rules to fit your preference.
Reminder: driving is a privilege, not a right. So, no.
Most of the country isn't walkable. Getting around on foot practically means walking on roadside and crossing where the isn't a pedestrian crossing.
Again, most of suburban streets don't even have sidewalks or pedestrian crossings.
You seem to be missing that point, which is why I'm suggesting you try getting around on foot for a month.
Great, simply great.
As I said, that's not an option for:
* people who can't afford a car
* the disabled
* children
* very old people
* etc
You're literally requiring everyone else to drive so that's driving is a bit easier for you because you'll have to pay less attention to the road.
OK. That kind of makes you look like a shitty driver, though.
Or use public transportation.
> people who can't afford a car, the disabled, children, very old people
Public transportation or uber or in the future, self driving car.
If these does not exist or not adequate then the fix is to make it available or improve it.
Well, OK, we are on the same page here.
But they surely do not exist in most of the US, and will not be available overnight. Until we have that, we should be mindful of people who have to deal with inadequacies of the infrastructure.
Uber is not a solution for most people. Call it what it is: a taxi. And you wouldn't expect someone too poor to have a car to take a taxi everywhere (same applies for children, international students, etc, etc).
=========================================
Personal anecdote: I petitioned the city of College Station, TX to construct sidewalks on Harvey Rd, where a lot of international grad students who don't have cars live. The street was missing sidewalks for a full block on both sides. I've seen a wheelchair being rolled on that road, where cars go 50mph, because there was no alternative.
The city's answer? It's in the development plan, but there's "no money" for it.
In the meantime, the Highway 6 ramp on Harvey Rd was redone two or three times. The ramp was fine, I saw no gain from that.
In my 7.5 years of living in the area, I never figured out a way to get to DPS by public transportation. I heard that there is a city bus, but I have not witnessed it. You'd think that people who need to get a license should have means of getting to the place that gives them out without having to drive, but no.
There was no way to get to most of the places without having to walk on the street where cars were driving. The sidewalk on College Main street (the main is in the name) was completed in 2016, and was an exception.
You literally couldn't walk to a movie theater, for example: the walking directions on Google Maps would take you on a highway frontage (exactly where you wouldn't want to be as a pedestrian).
So, if you have $10 for a movie ticket, but not another $20 for a taxi there and back (the idea that there could be a bus is laughable, of course there is no bus), you are SOL.
Not to mention that before Uber, even taxis were not a thing in many suburbs.
You know that people without cars are screwed, because you'd be very afraid to lose your license. It would be a disaster for your life. But it shouldn't be, because (as your driver's manual surely says) driving is a privilege that not all of us enjoy.
==============================
PS: I say this as someone who accumulates at least 10K non-commute miles every year, and who considers 200 miles a "short" drive. I am very much pro-driving, and think that having a personal vehicle is very liberating.
But at the same time, not having a vehicle should not be a death threat. In the US today, it is.
Why are city build for car ? Apparently enough people/entity whatever want it to be that way.
Good for you to, to fight for you cause, which is what you should be doing. If it were me, If I care enough I would petition to have more road and less sidewalks.
No, I do not expect the situation would be ideal for everyone. You can't never have a situation where everyone is happy, that is simply impossible.
And while we can't make everyone "happy", we definitely can definitely improve on things like, dunno, needlessly killing people.
OK, I guess trying to spin "hey, maybe we could care just a tiny bit" about other people isn't going to work here, so how about this:
The less people drive, the better it is for the drivers. Where I live, the 23-minute drive on Hwy 101 becomes up to a 1hr45m drive in the morning hours. Making the area pedestrian- and transit-friendly would likely cut down the peak commute time by half, saving car commuters a spare hour or two each day, judging by the experience in LA[1].
PS: "Adapt or die" is a shitty attitude to have, my friend.
A good friend of mine and I were living on Long Island, NY. We were students, and couldn't afford to have a car. Insurance in NY is hella expensive.
I moved out to grad school in TX, and "adapted": got a car and a license. It was cheap to live there, I could afford it.
My friend didn't get the chance. He couldn't afford a car on a grad student stipend in NY. One day, he got hit by a car and died.
I hold the Suffolk County - and people who say words like "adapt or die" regarding pedestrian deaths - personally responsible for the death of my friend, a PhD student who could have been working on self-driving cars now.
You must be young to hold this attitude, and I sincerely hope you change it. There's always a bigger fish. "Adapt or die" is great when it doesn't concern you.
[1]https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2013/04/public-transp...
Likewise, maybe you should care just a tiny bit about people who support car then. You easily dismiss their concern, deemed it as unimportant. Regardless, I still acknowledge your position, its just fact of life that every issue has some supporter and hatters.
There are few solution for congestion, build more road, elevated road, underground road, tunnel. Elon Musk has interesting idea with his boring company.
"Adapt or die" is not shitty attitude its the reality of life.
>A good friend of mine and I were living on Long Island, NY. We were students, and couldn't afford to have a car. Insurance in NY is hella expensive
For some people, its just mean you have to work harder/smarter to find the way to get it.
Whatever solution I purpose, you will just counter it with, what about this other group of people, an so on.
No I don't have all the solution for all kind people, no one is, at some point these people have to figure out themselves.
Yes at the very worse case, if you can't adapt you die, thats the reality of life.
Similarly, there are tons of other situation where current environment is not what I prefer, nonetheless I have to adapt or I'll die.
JFYI - Jaywalking was illegal in the USSR too.
And I'm not aware of a single city in the USSR where lack of sidewalks would be a problem, or where one would struggle to get to places without a car.
It was very hard to get a car in the USSR. The country was optimized for non-drivers.
There is no such word in Russian.
There's an entire thread[1] up here where people from the UK are saying the same thing:
>>‘Jaywalkers’ is such an offensive concept
>> "jaywalking" as a negative term was promoted by auto interests in the US in the early 20th century
etc.
>and without any serious arguments.
My argument is simple: try translating "jaywalker" into literally any other language. You can't. "Jaywalker" as a concept only exists in the US.
In other places, the law varies, but you can't call someone a "jaywalker" because there's no concept for it.
And the law varies, too, but in most European countries it is not a thing; see Wikipedia[2].
As for the invention of the word and its usage to shift the blame to pedestrians: it's a well-known historical fact. See Wikipedia again on the origin and use of the word[2].
(To wit, in Russian, the best you could do for "jaywalker" would translate back as "a person who has crossed the street in a place not designated for it", which bring street into the debate: specifically, whether/why the point of crossing was not designated as such. There is no automatic negative connotation, because we all know how much streets layouts can suck.
On top of that, you literally can't label a person as a "jaywalker" in Russian. Mind-blowing, right? Languages are fun.
Even funner thing that it doesn't make sense in the UK English either, see the above thread[1].)
Really, do read[1] and tell me where I am wrong.
Yeah, they are talking about the infraction, not the word. The point I had been making
>My argument is simple: try translating "jaywalker" into literally any other language. You can't. "Jaywalker" as a concept only exists in the US.
I can translate into Russian: "пешеход, совершивший переход проезжей части в неположенном месте". Don't know other languages but I am sure not every country is like a UK, where, according to comments here, everyone can just walk into traffic at any moment so everyone drives at 30kmh :)
>On top of that, you literally can't label a person as a "jaywalker" in Russian. Mind-blowing, right? Languages are fun.
You cannot label a person a "speeder" or "tailgater" in Russian too. Wow! Languages are fun indeed.
Isn't that what I wrote? :) Anyway, doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? Compare the title of the article with
"Self-Driving Uber in Crash Wasn't Programmed to Spot Pedestrians Crossing the Street Anywhere Except Crosswalks".
Which one makes Uber look less competent?
>You cannot label a person a "speeder" or "tailgater" in Russian too. Wow! Languages are fun indeed.
Well, yes! These aren't actions that warrant labeling a person in Russian. That tells you something indeed.
However, as verbs, the do have direct translations: превышать (to speed), висеть на хвосте (to tailgate).
Claim: "Jaywalking" does not translate to anything but literal dictionary definition like the one you provided in any language other than English, where it also has a clearly negative connotation.
Etymology: early 20th century: from jay in the colloquial sense ‘silly person’ + walk.
From Wikipedia: The term "jaywalking" is primarily a North American concept where laws restrict pedestrian use of public roads. In other countries such as the United Kingdom, the word is not generally used and there are no laws limiting how pedestrians can use public highways.
Also from Wikipedia: The word jaywalk is not historically neutral.[5] It is a compound word derived from the word jay, an inexperienced person and a curse word that originated in the early 1900s, and walk. Automobile interests in the US took up the cause of labeling and scorning jaywalkers in the 1910s and early 1920s, by then the earlier term of "jay driver" was declining in use.
I mean, it's all right there, with references. Again, what specifically are you arguing? That Wikipedia is wrong?
>Well, yes! These aren't actions that warrant labeling a person in Russian. That tells you something indeed.
I am now really curious. What does it tell? That speeding and tailgating are also invented by the auto-industry?
>However, as verbs, the do have direct translations: превышать (to speed), висеть на хвосте (to tailgate).
So? Jaywalking also has a direct translation as a verb "нарушать (правила перехода)".
>I mean, it's all right there, with references. Again, what specifically are you arguing? That Wikipedia is wrong?
I am arguing that jaywalking as a punishable offense exists outside the US, that's all. It's right there, in Wikipedia. Even in UK it's forbidden on "motorways" according to Wikipedia.
I am not going to argue about the origins of the derogatory term anymore: the history is there.
My point is that other countries don't have a derogatory term for people crossing the street.
For Russian, that'd be like "мудак", but specifically and only applicable to people crossing the street. Like "мудоход".
We don't have "мудоход", we don't fine for "мудоходство".
That's the difference in language I am trying to highlight.
And yes, jaywalking is not a neutral word, and neither is "разиня" (I have exaggerated the translation, of course).
Compare:
Мой научный руководитель перешёл улицу в неположенном месте.
Мой научный руководитель - разиня.
Don't you see a difference between that two? You wouldn't say the latter within the earshot of the person in question, perhaps.
Sorry for dragging this out for so long!
On the off-topic, I highly recommend Orwell's brilliant essay "Politics and the English Language"[1]
It deals with the subject of how choice of words affects thought, and on the danger of canned phrases.
A parallel work, in Russian, is Канцелярит[2], by Чуковский (a chapter from his book).
If you've already read both, would love to hear your thoughts; if not, then hope that this would be a good thing you could get out of this conversation :)
(I think you'd enjoy reading both as someone who speaks both languages)
[1]https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_poli...