‘Jay walking’ is such a bullshit term. ‘People trying to get across a road’ is what it is. Pedestrians should always have right of way.
As a society we have agreed that the laws in most places are "Pedestrians should cross the road at these designated spots, where they have right of way, sometimes only when given a specific signal". Sure, in some places it's become acceptable to cross the road outside of these "allowed" circumstances if you feel like there's no risk, but at that point you should also assume all liability.
FWIW I am for the pedestrianization of city centers and adding protected bike lanes everywhere possible, but I do think when there is a road, we all have to follow the agreed upon rules.
For example this isn't the law in the UK. Yet our road death rate is a fraction of yours.
> we all have to follow the agreed upon rules
Yes we should... but the rules shouldn't be as they are in the US and Canada, with hostile rules like 'jaywalking'.
Road death rate is a very broad statistic. As an EU citizen living in the US, there are certainly more differences than road-crossing rules and etiquette. For one, population density is almost an order of magnitude more sparse in the US (36 people / km^2) vs the uk (275 people /km^2). This, among other things means there's a dramatic shift in driving norms. There are also major cultural differences, eg talking on the phone while driving in Ireland is taboo (and illegal), but in Boston it's totally normal (and perfectly legal). Drink driving here is far more acceptable too. The list goes on and on.
[0]https://www.birchallblackburn.co.uk/do-pedestrians-always-ha...
I don’t agree. If you are driving too fast to stop for pedestrians, you are driving too fast, period.
I’ll make an exception for protected major freeways, especially in rural areas. (Abominations like the I-5 going straight through the middle of Seattle should be illegal).
> less practical than just encouraging pedestrians
By pedestrians, you actually mean "people". And it's all people. Little kids, people with mental disabilities, etc. What kind of "encouragement" is really going to keep everyone off the 50% of city land that we've turned into roads? Oh, except for the times you're allowed to be in the street. I've yet to meet an adult who even knows what an unmarked crosswalk is, but we're supposed to make sure every toddler knows this stuff or they die?
Having actually had someone dart out in front of me from between two parked cars when I was going about that speed, I don't really agree. Sure, I didn't hit them, but it was close and very dependent on reaction times for all involved.
> 50% of city land
It's more typically 30-35%
> Little kids, people with mental disabilities
Both hopefully supervised. It ain't just cars that will put defenseless people in peril.
I get that you have a very strong ideological opposition to cars, but let's be practical. They aren't going away. Arguably the utility offered by personal transportation in the last century has driven a huge amount of growth. So short of going backwards, we continue to find ways to live with them. Elimination is a pipe dream of a few super privileged people.
no offense, but this is kind of ridiculous. on a street with parallel parked cars, an uncareful pedestrian can instantly transition from being totally obstructed from view to only a couple feet in front of a moving vehicle. I literally can't drive slow enough to avoid hitting them without slipping the clutch all the way through the city.
> I literally can’t drive slow enough
So be it. Take the subway or bus.
If you really can't drive slowly enough, then avoid streets like that, ride a bike, walk, bus, cab, etc. In these kinds of crowded, pedestrian-filled areas, I'll drive 10 mph. I don't care. That's the speed I feel is right and safe for me and my neighbors. Speed limits really are limits. I _can_ drive slow enough.
from a formal legal perspective, sure, but this kind of ignores the "facts on the ground" in the US. it's unfortunate, but most people in this country really do need access to a car to complete basic life tasks. outside of uncharacteristically dense places like NYC, it's a privileged minority that is able to get by without owning a car or having a reliable friend / family member that owns one. I live in one of the few truly walkable areas of my city, but I can only afford this because I have a good software job 25 miles out in the suburbs.
> If you really can't drive slowly enough, then avoid streets like that, ride a bike, walk, bus, cab, etc. In these kinds of crowded, pedestrian-filled areas, I'll drive 10 mph. I don't care. That's the speed I feel is right and safe for me and my neighbors. Speed limits really are limits. I _can_ drive slow enough.
even 10 mph isn't slow enough to avoid hitting a pedestrian in every possible situation. it takes around 0.7-3 seconds for a driver to notice a hazard in the road and start applying the brakes. if you are an exceptionally alert driver and hit the 0.7 s figure, you have already traveled 10 feet towards the pedestrian before you've even started to slow down. if the pavement is dry and your brakes and tires are in good condition, you will come to a complete stop in another five feet. if, as in my example, someone darts out from between two parked cars, you will hit them if you do not have at least 15 feet in which to stop (although you probably won't injure them severely at this speed). again, this is assuming absolutely ideal conditions for you and your vehicle.
keep in mind, people routinely bump into each other while they're both walking. no amount of caution is sufficient to prevent a mishap when one party is totally oblivious. this is what I'm responding to here. I totally agree that the driver of a 1.5+ ton vehicle has a greater responsibility than someone moving under the power of their own two feet. what I don't agree with is that a pedestrian can step into oncoming traffic at any time and expect the whole world to stop for them or for it to automatically be someone else's fault if they get hit. as individuals, we can't reorganize america's entire transportation infrastructure overnight to eliminate the need for cars. we absolutely can accept a few minor inconveniences to make transit much safer for drivers and pedestrians both.
also, random aside: why do so many people suggest a bus or a cab as an alternative to driving in these threads? a bus or cab driver does not typically drive any more carefully than I do. all that accomplishes is to shift the liability onto someone else. the liability is not really a problem for me in the first place. I already drive more carefully than is needed to avoid legal fault in these situations.
No, it reduces the risk because it's one bus, vs fifty selfish people in their own cars. Less potential crashes.
The balance is pretty easy.
Like all things in life, we define patterns of use so we can more easily predict others' behavior. Sometimes these pattern definitions come from rules, others come from experience (rolling stops). Either way, pedestrian road crossing is defined in cross walks, typically found at intersections. If someone breaks the pattern, expect others around you to react unpredictably, which may include death.
This comment sounds very entitled, as if a pedestrian is entitled to the road whenever they damn well please.
It's not 'as if' that's what I'm arguing - that's literally what I'm arguing. I literally think a pedestrian is entitled to the road whenever they damn well please. (Within reason, to genuinely cross it reasonably quickly, don't step out without giving cars at a reasonable speed enough time to stop, excluding purpose-built major roads.)
Look at it from the other angle.
Why should cars be entitled to the road whenever they damn well please?
Why should the pedestrian stop for the car, instead of the car stopping for the pedestrian?
Why is your default mental model that the car owns the road?
2) cars are required to stop at cross walks, driveways, and other similar pedestrian interfaces. Cars are entitled to roads because roads are for cars. Otherwise we’d have sidewalks everywhere.
2) roads were there for pedestrians long before cars were invented - they got taken from us for cars
It’s just like train crossings. Cars stop for trains because trains can’t stop.
Lastly modern roads are heavily funded from gas taxes, so cars in effect pay for the roads.
Effectively you’re condoning stealing a bunch of land from the commons, because the thieves paid for the improvements on it? (Which only benefit themselves - non-drivers are perfectly happy with non-“modern” roads).
The rest comes form the general fund.
Because that is the rule, and the rule was created to create predictability and thereby increase safety. You are arguing to reduce safety because you have an ideological opposition to cars.
Even when they're at a safe distance, cars zooming around in towns are extremely unpleasant to be around as a pedestrian.
I don't think you've adequately proven your point. For instance, it's not an outrageous hypothesis that frequent uncontrolled pedestrian crossings readies drivers for that event thereby increasing safety whereas rare uncontrolled pedestrian crossings mean that drivers are surprised for and unable to handle the situation.
In a systems thinking sense, it's not obvious that fixed pedestrian/car intersections are the safest.
It's not exactly controversial, so what else needs to be proven? You asked why things are as they are, I say it's because we implemented rules governing how we drive and walk on roads to create predictability and therefore safety. Don't like that cars seem to have more free reign? Change the road design, change the rules. But there are good reasons we have the system we have now.
A similar law for pedestrians might state that any location where pedestrians tend to cross more than X times/day must be a all-way stop.
That's generally true everywhere, because it's the only answer that makes any sense. We know from lots of experience that even with heavy enforcement, just reducing speed limits doesn't have a big effect on actual speeds. About 10% of drivers rigorously follow the signs, the other 90% drive what's comfortable. So the practical answer is to design roads to be uncomfortable at high speeds. Makes them safer for cars and people both. Just reducing speed limits is a feel-good non-solution.
I don't think this accurately describes any place I've lived. a driver isn't entitled to do whatever they want on a road. they have to stop for stop signs, signals, etc. that mediate intersecting rights-of-way. they are obligated to yield to pedestrians in a crosswalk, and even if the pedestrian is completely in the wrong, they are obligated to avoid hitting them if possible. what exactly do you want to change here?
Because pedestrians should have primacy. All areas should be for pedestrians by default, and minimal exceptions made. The majority of the street is a not a minimal exception.
Also, pedestrians don’t have negative externalities, and don’t take up nearly as much space.
If car-only roads only took up as much room in cities as sidewalks do, I wouldn’t mind them!
I think in the UK pedestrians always have right of way, with a couple of exceptions (motorways and things.)
2. That's not how it works in other countries. Pedestrians do not have right of way in the UK if not at a marked crossing.
Yes they do - look at the case law in practice. For example Brushett v Hazeldean (that was cyclists but it's being interpreted as cars as well.)
Also, the case you reference was a case of a pedestrian crossing at a designated pedestrian crossing, so I don't understand how that's relevant to your point – if anything it supports mine.
Also, you've repeatedly asked the question "why should drivers get any right of way on the roads". Well, for one, I would imagine that the average car operator pays more towards the upkeep of the roads than the average pedestrian.
Pay to play, huh?
Rich people get to use the roads for what they want, huh?
Roads are literally built for cars to drive on. Having people on them makes driving far more dangerous, as well as meaning it takes longer to get places, not to mention taking a hit on fuel efficiency.
Should I be able to walk in front of a bus load of people and delay their commute? If we're allowing pedestrians unlimited full access to roads with full right of way all the time, then roads basically become sidewalks which cars are also allowed to inch along at walking speed. So what happens to busses now? Are we ok saying busloads of people now have to move at 3mph across a few miles? Again, I am for converting some downtown roads into pedestrian-only areas, but until we do that, we should treat these roads as roads.
If pedestrians should have right of way everywhere all the time, should a pedestrian be able to walk across a railroad crossing while the barriers are down and a train is approaching? Is the train expected to stop? Of course not, that would be ridiculous, but it's the same argument.
No, at least outside of the US roads were there before the car even existed. They were walked on before anything else. Then cars hijacked them, and now people have so long forgotten in the US that they've started writing laws to strengthen their land-grab as if it was always this way.
> Should I be able to walk in front of a bus load of people and delay their commute?
No I don't think you should be able to unreasonably obstruct the highway. You can't do that no matter what vehicle or no vehicle you're in. But crossing is completely reasonable in my mind.
I mean yes, obviously the concept of a road does literally predate cars. But no roads that modern cars drive on today were built 200 years ago for cattle and wagons to use. Modern city planners built (or re-built) these roads specifically with vehicle traffic in mind (and in some cases maybe bikes). If they didn't want them to support vehicle traffic, they would have built them using different materials and designs.
> No I don't think you should be able to unreasonably obstruct the highway. You can't do that no matter what vehicle or no vehicle you're in. But crossing is completely reasonable in my mind.
This reads like you're saying you think it's completely reasonable to cross the highway even if it obstructs traffic? I could be misinterpreting the connection between your first and last sentences here...
Either way, at the end of the day I think it comes down to the fact that we disagree on what constitutes "unreasonable obstruction". I believe a single pedestrian wanting to slow down dozens of cars so they can cross the street 30 seconds quicker is unreasonable. Even if we're talking about all pedestrians, the aggregate time saved by pedestrians crossing slightly earlier is far outweighed by the time lost by everyone in a car who's now traveling at 5mph instead of 40mph. I believe the current system we have of batching pedestrians crossing using traffic lights is far more efficient overall. The "should there be roads here in the first place" argument is a totally different one however.
Yeah I do - as a pedestrian. I think you should get across as quickly as you can and shouldn't get in people's way unnecessarily... but yeah morally I think you should have that right as a human being on foot.
Letting cars have priority lets people with wealth and opportunity have priority.
I would actually argue the opposite. As the saying goes, "Location, Location, Location." Many of the wealthiest people / most expensive homes are either walking distance to or in the middle of big hubs. The next most expensive places are walking distance to public transport to take them to big hubs. You can get a much cheaper place if you go to somewhere that's an hour's drive outside the city with no public transport (or the only public transport available is by bus), and that's what many people do to cut down on costs.
You've also mentioned that cars probably shouldn't be able to go even as fast as 40kmph when pedestrians could cross... Should we be making all of our highways 30kmph now if we're saying pedestrians should be able to cross them at-will?
This thread has digressed a bit. It was originally about jaywalking in cities. Should it be a named crime to cross a road in the middle of New York City? Come on - no - pedestrians owned those first and should still do.
Why are we starting from the point of the default is that it is space for cars rather than people?
Because cars take longer to stop? Well then how about the cars slow down in cities?
Because cars are more dangerous? Well that sounds like a reason to restrict them, not the pedestrians.
- built for humans to walk on[1]. Cars are not allowed on here at all.
- built for cars to drive on[2]. See the big double yellow lines in the middle? That's how you know this part of the road was designed with cars in mind. However, because we don't have the money to build footbridges over every road, we put a zebra crossing in the middle of it so that pedestrians can cross between the routes that only they are allowed on.
Cars get the right of way on roads because that's what we built them (or in the case of old roads that existed before cars, repurposed/maintain them) for. Just like we built the sidewalks/pavements/footpaths/footbridges/etc for pedestrians (and sometimes cyclists).
Maybe part of the problem here is that you seem to be using "road" to mean "things people go on", when the rest of us are using the word road to mean "the things people drive on", and generally use other words to describe the things we've built specifically for walking on.
[1] https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/w/images/8/8c/Pavement....
[2] https://imgs.6sqft.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/22110146/N...
And why do we talk about pedestrians 'crossing the street'? How about instead we call crosswalks an extension of the sidewalk and talk about cars 'crossing the sidewalk'?
How did we let cars get the upper hand on people?
And why is anyone driving through a freaking city in the first place? Unless you're disabled, or delivering physical goods, what on earth are you doing? Get out!
People want to get from point A to point B, without it taking 2 hours to get there.
That being said, tanks aren't actually that big, so usually you can drive a tank on the road. Main problem is you need to stick to low speed roads because they don't go very fast.
Because I can, and there is literally nothing you can do about it. Heck, sometimes I just get in my car and drive for no reason at all, just because I have the freedom to do so.
The law could be changed, disallowing cars in people spaces like cities without a good reason to be there.
I'm not saying people should expect physics to not apply to them, but they should be allowed to cross anywhere they want and cars should defer.
Cars used to have to have a person walking on foot in front of them to warn people with a flag.
But even they are empty, jaywalking is still a crime. Why?
By way of context as to the vigorous enforcement of this law, NYC gave out 300 jaywalking tickets last year. That is not a lot.
In fact that's only about 2x the number of pedestrian deaths in NYC last year.
And this is a city where everyone pedestrian or driver will take every inch they can. Any driver who hesitates is going to find an entire group waiting for a light taking the opportunity to just start crossing.
Does it? How do you know that?
New York (jaywalking laws in effect) has slightly worse road safety than for example London (no jaywalking laws.)
Whether you like it or not, there are cars in most areas of cities and pedestrians (and cyclists) mostly interact with them without too much carnage, in part because there are rules that most people follow most of the time.