4 ms·

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 m

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.
  - burfog 8y ago
    This is not historically correct. Streets exist for carts and chariots and carriages. These are drawn by horses, oxen, mules, donkeys, and stranger things. Those were probably killing jaywalkers in ancient Rome. Pedestrians only need paths, which may have staircases and stepping stones.
    - CalRobert 8y ago
      Humans can coexist well with those things, unlike cars. http://static.libsyn.com/p/assets/c/c/3/a/cc3a56fafeaa6119/Screen_Shot_2016-07-24_at_11.07.12_PM.png http://static.libsyn.com/p/assets/c/c/3/a/cc3a56fafeaa6119/S...
blattimwind 8y ago
> 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 I don't think there is any country with a rule like that. I do think many people are articulating a different rule [1] badly, making it appear as-if. [1] Pedestrians can cross roads everywhere, but only if it's safe to do so and don't obstruct traffic. During the crossing transverse traffic does not have right of way momentarily.

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.
- burfog 8y ago
  This is not historically correct. Streets exist for carts and chariots and carriages. These are drawn by horses, oxen, mules, donkeys, and stranger things. Those were probably killing jaywalkers in ancient Rome. Pedestrians only need paths, which may have staircases and stepping stones.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    Humans can coexist well with those things, unlike cars. http://static.libsyn.com/p/assets/c/c/3/a/cc3a56fafeaa6119/Screen_Shot_2016-07-24_at_11.07.12_PM.png http://static.libsyn.com/p/assets/c/c/3/a/cc3a56fafeaa6119/S...

blattimwind 8y ago

> 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 I don't think there is any country with a rule like that. I do think many people are articulating a different rule [1] badly, making it appear as-if. [1] Pedestrians can cross roads everywhere, but only if it's safe to do so and don't obstruct traffic. During the crossing transverse traffic does not have right of way momentarily.