4 ms·

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. Ther

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
    Super interesting. I have to admit my bias is to say that it seems difficult to assess when the pedestrian became visible to the driver (which would affect whether they could've stopped in time), but I'm also totally willing to admit that I might be nitpicking and it's a fine system. Thanks for the response!
    - eponeponepon 8y ago
      The point here, though, is that it doesn't matter whether the driver could've seen them, because culpability rests with the driver by default (except, as mentioned, in situations such as motorways, where pedestrians aren't allowed). In very general terms, as a pedestrian in the UK, you have no particular right to step into the road other than at marked crossings, but as soon as you do, you have total right of way, no matter how stupid it was of you to step into the road. There are various crimes in the vein of 'obstructing a public highway' and so forth, so you aren't completely free to be an asshole, but even if you are, it's still on drivers to avoid hitting you; in my experience, this tends to make drivers more careful and aware of nearby pedestrians, so I'm fully in favour of the status quo.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        I'm sure it works fine in practice, but it's still not ideal if you can put one foot into the street and oblige cars to slam on their brakes.
        eponeponepon 8y ago
        No, that wouldn't be ideal - but that's also not how it is.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        Well you're the expert here, can you please tell me why I'm wrong? I'm just trying to go by your earlier explanation. I'd like to be wrong here!
- coldtea 8y ago
  >What happens when a driver hits a pedestrian? Is there an investigation into whether the driver could've stopped in time? The driver would be more guilty as they should have been going with a suitable speed and pay attention to the road when driving inside the city.
  - wgerard 8y ago
    Living in a major city myself, I can think of several intersections where one could be traveling the speed limit and paying attention but be completely unable to stop in time for a pedestrian crossing unexpectedly. There are numerous streets and corners that are really poorly lit because of scaffolding/debris/etc.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >There are numerous streets and corners that are really poorly lit because of scaffolding/debris/etc. Well, the city should light them properly and clean them up then?
      - wgerard 8y ago
        From my original post: > It could work, but I think it would involve re-designing countless intersections to provide higher visibility of pedestrians for drivers--not a bad goal, but I think a pretty unfeasible one.
    - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
      If there was poor visibility for the driver, there's almost certainly poor visibility for the pedestrian too. Most are sensible enough to walk a little further to where they can get a bit better look at what traffic is coming. If I did hit someone at a visibility blind spot I'd expect to be shouted at by the cop too for not slowing down to a speed suitable for the visibility, and that the speed limit is a maximum sir. In that special sarcastic voice, common to all British cops. That might be later reflected in my fine or penalty. :)
      - 8y ago
shaklee3 8y ago
I googled this quickly, and I'm seeing the UK has 36 deaths per billion miles driven [1] and USA is 1.7 [2]. Can you cite your sources that the UK isn't disproportionately high? I could be reading the numbers wrong. [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/744077/reported-road-casualties-annual-report-2017.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... [2] https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232 https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232
- DanBC 8y ago
  What is being counted? Have I got this right? In the UK it appears they're counting the deaths per billion miles that people walk. In your BMJ article it appears they're counting deaths per billion miles that people drive.
  - zimpenfish 8y ago
    You're right - it's "fatalities per billion miles walked" vs "fatalities per billion miles driven".
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Ooh I missed that whilst looking with my early morning coffee. Pedestrian deaths per billion miles that people drive seems an odd choice of measure.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  That disparity is unbelievable. Even allowing the 15 year difference. The UK consistently comes surprisingly well toward the safest end of global road safety stats, and has as long as I can remember. By way of sanity check, it would mean walking in the USA is safer than driving a car in the UK (1.9/bn m). That's not credible. :) Sourced from gov.uk [0] (ods spreadsheet file), pedestrian fatalities, in 2016, are 7.1 per million population in the United Kingdom; 470 pedestrians killed, and 18.5 in the USA; 5,987 pedestrians killed, confirmed for USA by NHTSA[1]. For overall road traffic deaths, in 2015 UK 2.9 per 100k population (1,770 total deaths) 22.9% pedestrians, USA 10.6 per 100k (32,719 total deaths, approx 5x the UK population, 18x the total reported deaths) 14.1% pedestrians, source WHO, table A2 [2]. Every international comparison and US source I found prefers per 100k or million population and agrees with the above. I stopped there, so can't compare the gov.uk doc you linked, or why the US data in BMJ differs so markedly. [0] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras52-international-comparisons https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras52-in... (Download RAS52001) [1] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812493 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... (PDF. Note they report per 100,000 not million, so it's 1.85) [2] http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2015/en/ http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_st...
cja 8y ago
"Having started to cross they have priority over traffic" - Not true and potentially dangerous misinformation. Jaywalking controls are stupid because: 1. They restrict the freedom of pedestrians. 2. They encourage extra pedestrian crossings, which increases the number of hazards to drivers. 3. They move responsibility for pedestrian safety from pedestrians to drivers. As a Briton, it always feels like living in some authoritarian, ultra-controlled future to be at a roadside in another country, with no cars within range, and not to be allowed to walk across to the other side.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > "Having started to cross they have priority over traffic" - Not true and potentially dangerous misinformation. It is true at junctions. Rule 170. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-... > 3. Road junctions > 170. Take extra care at junctions. You should [...] > Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    Also more generally. See Road users requiring extra care, Pedestrians (205 to 210). The onus is on both to take adequate care, and on drivers to stop in time. The presumption of fault is on the driver. Which is not the same as saying pedestrians have free reign to leap into the path of oncoming vehicles, anywhere they like, expecting traffic to stop on a sixpence. Even though that sometimes seems the done thing in London. After all, pedestrians are expected to only cross when it's safe to do so. So I'm not quite sure what the GP is getting at, except it's often unwise trying to provide a few sentence summary of anything lengthy on HN. :)

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
  Super interesting. I have to admit my bias is to say that it seems difficult to assess when the pedestrian became visible to the driver (which would affect whether they could've stopped in time), but I'm also totally willing to admit that I might be nitpicking and it's a fine system. Thanks for the response!
  - eponeponepon 8y ago
    The point here, though, is that it doesn't matter whether the driver could've seen them, because culpability rests with the driver by default (except, as mentioned, in situations such as motorways, where pedestrians aren't allowed). In very general terms, as a pedestrian in the UK, you have no particular right to step into the road other than at marked crossings, but as soon as you do, you have total right of way, no matter how stupid it was of you to step into the road. There are various crimes in the vein of 'obstructing a public highway' and so forth, so you aren't completely free to be an asshole, but even if you are, it's still on drivers to avoid hitting you; in my experience, this tends to make drivers more careful and aware of nearby pedestrians, so I'm fully in favour of the status quo.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      I'm sure it works fine in practice, but it's still not ideal if you can put one foot into the street and oblige cars to slam on their brakes.
      - eponeponepon 8y ago
        No, that wouldn't be ideal - but that's also not how it is.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        Well you're the expert here, can you please tell me why I'm wrong? I'm just trying to go by your earlier explanation. I'd like to be wrong here!
coldtea 8y ago
>What happens when a driver hits a pedestrian? Is there an investigation into whether the driver could've stopped in time? The driver would be more guilty as they should have been going with a suitable speed and pay attention to the road when driving inside the city.
- wgerard 8y ago
  Living in a major city myself, I can think of several intersections where one could be traveling the speed limit and paying attention but be completely unable to stop in time for a pedestrian crossing unexpectedly. There are numerous streets and corners that are really poorly lit because of scaffolding/debris/etc.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >There are numerous streets and corners that are really poorly lit because of scaffolding/debris/etc. Well, the city should light them properly and clean them up then?
    - wgerard 8y ago
      From my original post: > It could work, but I think it would involve re-designing countless intersections to provide higher visibility of pedestrians for drivers--not a bad goal, but I think a pretty unfeasible one.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    If there was poor visibility for the driver, there's almost certainly poor visibility for the pedestrian too. Most are sensible enough to walk a little further to where they can get a bit better look at what traffic is coming. If I did hit someone at a visibility blind spot I'd expect to be shouted at by the cop too for not slowing down to a speed suitable for the visibility, and that the speed limit is a maximum sir. In that special sarcastic voice, common to all British cops. That might be later reflected in my fine or penalty. :)
    - 8y ago

shaklee3 8y ago

I googled this quickly, and I'm seeing the UK has 36 deaths per billion miles driven [1] and USA is 1.7 [2]. Can you cite your sources that the UK isn't disproportionately high? I could be reading the numbers wrong. [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/744077/reported-road-casualties-annual-report-2017.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... [2] https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232 https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/11/4/232

DanBC 8y ago
What is being counted? Have I got this right? In the UK it appears they're counting the deaths per billion miles that people walk. In your BMJ article it appears they're counting deaths per billion miles that people drive.
- zimpenfish 8y ago
  You're right - it's "fatalities per billion miles walked" vs "fatalities per billion miles driven".
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Ooh I missed that whilst looking with my early morning coffee. Pedestrian deaths per billion miles that people drive seems an odd choice of measure.
NeedMoreTea 8y ago
That disparity is unbelievable. Even allowing the 15 year difference. The UK consistently comes surprisingly well toward the safest end of global road safety stats, and has as long as I can remember. By way of sanity check, it would mean walking in the USA is safer than driving a car in the UK (1.9/bn m). That's not credible. :) Sourced from gov.uk [0] (ods spreadsheet file), pedestrian fatalities, in 2016, are 7.1 per million population in the United Kingdom; 470 pedestrians killed, and 18.5 in the USA; 5,987 pedestrians killed, confirmed for USA by NHTSA[1]. For overall road traffic deaths, in 2015 UK 2.9 per 100k population (1,770 total deaths) 22.9% pedestrians, USA 10.6 per 100k (32,719 total deaths, approx 5x the UK population, 18x the total reported deaths) 14.1% pedestrians, source WHO, table A2 [2]. Every international comparison and US source I found prefers per 100k or million population and agrees with the above. I stopped there, so can't compare the gov.uk doc you linked, or why the US data in BMJ differs so markedly. [0] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras52-international-comparisons https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras52-in... (Download RAS52001) [1] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812493 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/... (PDF. Note they report per 100,000 not million, so it's 1.85) [2] http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2015/en/ http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_st...

cja 8y ago

"Having started to cross they have priority over traffic" - Not true and potentially dangerous misinformation. Jaywalking controls are stupid because: 1. They restrict the freedom of pedestrians. 2. They encourage extra pedestrian crossings, which increases the number of hazards to drivers. 3. They move responsibility for pedestrian safety from pedestrians to drivers. As a Briton, it always feels like living in some authoritarian, ultra-controlled future to be at a roadside in another country, with no cars within range, and not to be allowed to walk across to the other side.

DanBC 8y ago
> "Having started to cross they have priority over traffic" - Not true and potentially dangerous misinformation. It is true at junctions. Rule 170. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-159-to-203 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/using-the-road-... > 3. Road junctions > 170. Take extra care at junctions. You should [...] > Watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  Also more generally. See Road users requiring extra care, Pedestrians (205 to 210). The onus is on both to take adequate care, and on drivers to stop in time. The presumption of fault is on the driver. Which is not the same as saying pedestrians have free reign to leap into the path of oncoming vehicles, anywhere they like, expecting traffic to stop on a sixpence. Even though that sometimes seems the done thing in London. After all, pedestrians are expected to only cross when it's safe to do so. So I'm not quite sure what the GP is getting at, except it's often unwise trying to provide a few sentence summary of anything lengthy on HN. :)