8 ms·

> In the case of jaywalking, the answer is simple. You just make it legal. Cars can slow down. Mmmm I dunno about that. Drivers have minimum reaction times and

• nickez 8y ago
  This is how it works in Sweden and I believe we have even fewer road casualties than the US.
  • wgerard 8y ago
    Interesting! I didn't know that. Also curious as with the other poster: What happens when a driver hits a pedestrian? Do they do an investigation into whether the driver could've stopped in time/was traveling the speed limit/etc?
    • MiddleEndian 8y ago
      To my knowledge, jaywalking is legal in Boston, where I live. The pedestrian is presumed to have the right-of-way.
      • wgerard 8y ago
        I don't think that's true, it's just a very minimal fine (which I would be completely fine with): https://www.mass.gov/how-to/respond-to-a-jaywalking-ticket https://www.mass.gov/how-to/respond-to-a-jaywalking-ticket
        • MiddleEndian 8y ago
          https://boston.cbslocal.com/2010/10/01/jaywalking-in-boston-who-cares/ https://boston.cbslocal.com/2010/10/01/jaywalking-in-boston-... Here's an article from 2010 saying they hadn't given a single ticket in Boston or Cambridge in years. To my knowledge they still don't give out the tickets. I've certainly jaywalked in front of cops in Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, and Quincy without penalty for decades. So even if it's in the state law it's not enforced around Boston. I lived in the Seattle area for a couple years and that's the only time in my life I ever saw a person penalized for jaywalking and I was shocked to see it. One of the reasons I'm glad to be back in Boston.
    • coldtea 8y ago
      >Also curious as with the other poster: What happens when a driver hits a pedestrian? Do they do an investigation into whether the driver could've stopped in time/was traveling the speed limit/etc? Yes. And the driver has the burden of proof. They drive in a city, so they should have appropriate distance from anything in front of them, and go slow enough to stop. What if it was a kid running into the street? Here's the lowdown from a UK solicitor: https://www.digbybrown.co.uk/solicitors/news-main/what-happens-if-pedestrians-are-partly-to-blame-for-the-road-accident https://www.digbybrown.co.uk/solicitors/news-main/what-happe...
      • blattimwind 8y ago
        > so they should have appropriate distance from anything in front of them, and go slow enough to stop This doesn't make sense. Crossing pedestrians go across the road, so if you are driving on a lane next to the sidewalk, then you could only go in first gear hovering the brakes, because any pedestrian on the sidewalk could start to cross the road in ~one second or less and would have right of way. Basically all streets would be zebra crossings. Obviously not how it works.
• NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  UK has never had jaywalking laws. Most countries don't. We have crossings too, of course, which are optional, but sensible to use when it's rush hours etc. There's no sign that our collisions or injuries are disproportionately high. A pedestrian crosses when they feel it is safe to do so, and anywhere along the road they choose. Having started to cross they have priority over traffic. Lately some drivers are less inclined to give way to pedestrians, but the law hasn't changed, and they are still legally obliged to do so. Motorways, of course, have no pedestrians. The word was originally from jay-drivers. Which was a forgotten American term of abuse for carriage drivers who did not stick to the correct side of the road! Once cars arrived the industry lobbied and jaywalking became a term of abuse for pedestrians, and eventually a law.
  • wgerard 8y ago
    > UK has never had jaywalking laws. Most countries don't... A pedestrian crosses when they feel it is safe to do so, and anywhere along the road they choose. Having started to cross they have priority over traffic. That's really interesting! I wasn't aware of that. What happens when a driver hits a pedestrian? Is there an investigation into whether the driver could've stopped in time?
    • NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      Loosely the presumption of guilt lands on the car driver for failing to stop in time, just as it would if you ran into the back of someone, or hit a cyclist. There are of course circumstances where a driver has little chance, like a kid running from between parked cars after their ball, someone not looking, or a cyclist running a light. The police generally investigate the scene and assess what happened, measure out distances, skid distances to assess driver speed, and seek witnesses etc if there's reason to think circumstances aren't straightforward or there's serious injury or death. There's also some degree of marshalling on busiest roads by putting up railings in some places to encourage crossing at safer spots, or the crossing a few yards away.
      • wgerard 8y ago
• tom_ 8y ago
  Drivers have no problem avoiding other cars, which move much more quickly, are much less manoeuvreable, and have longer stopping distances. Strikes me that avoiding people on foot ought to be pretty simple.
  • ken 8y ago
    That's true of other cars, too. They're big, change direction slowly, and are covered in bright lights. Pedestrians are small, can (and do) change direction quickly, and often wear dark colors, even at night. Cars are also much more predictable. They have lines that show where they're going, (usually) signal before changing direction, and (IME) are much more likely to obey red lights. I rarely see cars simply ignore a red light, but I see pedestrians do it all the time.
  • wgerard 8y ago
    Cars don't suddenly become visible unexpectedly unlike pedestrians, so that seems like a strange argument to me--with the notable exception perhaps of right-on-red, which isn't universal for sure (presumably for this very reason). Even then, the moving traffic has the right-of-way there.
  • thrower123 8y ago
    Cars aren't often completely unlighted and painted in dark matte colors while they are in the roadway at dusk or night times.
• ken 8y ago
  The only issue I have with keeping it illegal is that so many people already do it. I don't commute by car but I drive a couple evenings a week through the city, and in every single intersection on my trip (5 miles) I see people jaywalking. I see people do it right in front of cops, and nobody cares. What is the purpose of a law that few people follow, and which is never enforced? Shouldn't the laws of a republic reflect the will of the citizens?
  • wgerard 8y ago
    I definitely see your point, and I have mixed feelings on it to be fair (for the very reason you noted). I think it's more about establishing right-of-way for me, more than punishing pedestrians for jaywalking. I don't think it's smart to allow pedestrians the right-of-way at all times, but I'm also learning that other countries do this already so I'm certainly willing to admit I could be wrong here!
    • misterhtmlcss 8y ago
      In Germany I think it's different. If you cross when you aren't allowed the car has the right of way. I have actually no idea why this isn't the case in Canada. Seems pretty reasonable; light shows 'walk' symbol and you cross knowing you are in the right of way, but the hand stops flashing and if a car hits you then your dead and wrong. Seems a really reliable system that will safely predict outcomes consistent with obliging behavior. To be honest, I walk quite often and yet I'm absolutely against pedestrian rights as they are today and I believe it's totally impractical and against any common sense having the laws in favour of pedestrians as they are now, nor do I believe it makes roads safer for anyone. In fact if you apply human psychology/behavior inclusive of a person's ability to focus on multiple obstructions, notifications, etc, I'd be willing to bet that drivers are by far overwhelmed in modern cities and that it's reckless disregard for public safety that pedestrians are given absolutely no accountability for their actions beyond dead right or right.
      • CalRobert 8y ago
        It's because the streets were originally for pedestrians. Cars invaded the space previously used by people walking. Why does wearing a big box give you the right to own the road? By that logic I should be able to ride my bike on the footpath and blame any pedestrians I hit.
• coldtea 8y ago
  >>In the case of jaywalking, the answer is simple. You just make it legal. Cars can slow down. > Mmmm I dunno about that. Drivers have minimum reaction times and cars have stopping distances Actually in many countries like the Netherlands and the UK, inside the city pedestrians have priority (right of way) over traffic everywhere. If a pedestrian crosses you stop, no jaywalking BS.
  • wgerard 8y ago
    Wait, is it just inside the major cities? Not everywhere?
    • coldtea 8y ago
      All cities, major AND minor (and villages). You wouldn't except this to happen to the equivalent of the New Jersey Turnpike, of course. So, on high speed highways, on the other hand, you're often not allowed to randomly cross, except in specific areas.
      • wgerard 8y ago
        Interesting. Thanks for the response!
        • coldtea 8y ago
          Note that this is not the case everyone in Europe necessarily. But you can cross outside zebra crossing in the UK, Netherlands, Greece, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway. In some countries like Italy or France it is legal as long as there's no explicit zebra crossing nearby (e.g. without 50 or 100 meters). In most of the countries, crossing the equivalent of highways or interstates is illegal (except in designated overpasses and such). Regarding the question about what happens to drivers, here's an example for what's the case in Belgium "any physical damage to a pedestrian caused by a traffic accident shall be compensated by the insurance of the drivers involved, regardless of the responsibility of the pedestrian, except if that pedestrian is over 14 and wanted the accident and its consequences to occur." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking
• blattimwind 8y ago
  Most countries use the middle way between illegal and always-right-of-way (which obviously does not work, not even for cyclists)