9 ms·

In Boston, jay walking is just what everyone does. No one will blame the jay walker if they get run over - it is the driver's fault.

blobbers 6y ago
I'm reminded of https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/18/7236471/cars-pedestrians-sidewalks-roads https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/18/7236471/cars-pedestria...
Grazester 6y ago
If the driver was not breaking any laws when they hit the pedestrian I bet nothing will come of it however. In NYC it seems like this is usually the case.
loughnane 6y ago
This is correct and I think it’s the healthy attitude of a pedestrian friendly city. This is the sort of bar self-driving firms should be setting.
chrisseaton 6y ago
‘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.
- fastball 6y ago
  Even when crossing roads where the speed limit is 40MPH+?
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Yeah. I see the clowns in Cambridge who dart out into a poorly lit road at night not at a crosswalk wearing dark clothing. I'm watching for them because I know people do it. But the idea that a pedestrian can do anything they want to get across a medium speed road is idiotic.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      Why shouldn't they cross the road any way they like? Why do you think the space is yours by default and not theirs?
      - fastball 6y ago
        Because you are in a fast-moving, can't-stop-on-a-dime vehicle that society has agreed is useful and that society has agreed can (and should, for efficiency purposes) go certain speeds in certain areas.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        Because someone may well maim or kill them sooner or later, if you're going to have cars, and will be a great bother for everyone involved. Look, I live somewhere people in all modes of transportation including foot mostly treat traffic laws as vague suggestions, but it's not so much a case of a driver refusing to stop for a pedestrian but the fact that pedestrians randomly crossing roads, especially at night and/or rainy weather, are running a non-trivial risk of getting hit.
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        why is a sidewalk for pedestrians by default? is it unreasonable that cars aren't allowed on a sidewalk when pedestrians aren't using it?
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        > why is a sidewalk for pedestrians by default? 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.
        umanwizard 6y ago
        Almost everyone walks (and even those who don’t can still use sidewalks, with wheelchairs). “Pedestrian” isn’t some separate class of people. 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!
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Why not? People come first. That's how it works in other countries. I think in the UK pedestrians always have right of way, with a couple of exceptions (motorways and things.)
    - fastball 6y ago
      1. The person in the car is also a person, why shouldn't they have right of way. 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.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > 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.)
        fastball 6y ago
        I have. They do not have the right of way. Vehicle operators merely have a high duty of care which can supersede right of way. 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.
    - Sodman 6y ago
      You have to remember there are also people in the cars who are now put in unnecessary danger by pedestrians jumping out in front of them. The worst part is that they are at the mercy of others to avoid this danger. Even if they see you unexpectedly moving in front of traffic and react in time, the 2-3 cars behind them also have to do the same for everyone to avoid injury. If you jump in front of moving cars, you should be personally liable for any injuries and damages caused by cars trying to avoid you. And this is all avoidable if the pedestrian walks a little further to get to the crosswalk, or waits a little longer for a walk signal.
  - umanwizard 6y ago
    Such roads shouldn’t exist in cities.
- Sodman 6y ago
  I strongly disagree. We can argue where exactly the line should be, but most people should agree that pedestrian's shouldn't be able to just suddenly jump out in front of a fast-moving stream of heavy traffic and expect everyone to stop across all lanes for them. 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.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > 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". 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'.
    - Sodman 6y ago
      Actually the law in the UK is that Pedestrian's usually don't have the right of way outside of designated crossing areas [0]. Drivers are considered to have a "Heavy Duty of Care" since they are of course driving large dangerous vehicles and pedestrians are more vulnerable, but they still have the right of way on your average road. 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-have-right-of-way-on-roads/ https://www.birchallblackburn.co.uk/do-pedestrians-always-ha...
- abfan1127 6y ago
  illegal lane change? no, its just a car getting across a road. 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.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > 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?
    - abfan1127 6y ago
      I’ll offer 2 points of view. 1) I ride atvs in the sand dunes. There’s an unwritten rule that “tonnage rules” I.e. stay out of the way of bigger things. Regardless of right/wrong, you’re still dead if a dirt bike collides with a sand car. 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.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        1) bigger wins is a rule bullies use 2) roads were there for pedestrians long before cars were invented - they got taken from us for cars

blobbers 6y ago

I'm reminded of https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/18/7236471/cars-pedestrians-sidewalks-roads https://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/18/7236471/cars-pedestria...

Grazester 6y ago

If the driver was not breaking any laws when they hit the pedestrian I bet nothing will come of it however. In NYC it seems like this is usually the case.

loughnane 6y ago

This is correct and I think it’s the healthy attitude of a pedestrian friendly city. This is the sort of bar self-driving firms should be setting.

chrisseaton 6y ago

‘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.

fastball 6y ago
Even when crossing roads where the speed limit is 40MPH+?
- ghaff 6y ago
  Yeah. I see the clowns in Cambridge who dart out into a poorly lit road at night not at a crosswalk wearing dark clothing. I'm watching for them because I know people do it. But the idea that a pedestrian can do anything they want to get across a medium speed road is idiotic.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Why shouldn't they cross the road any way they like? Why do you think the space is yours by default and not theirs?
    - fastball 6y ago
      Because you are in a fast-moving, can't-stop-on-a-dime vehicle that society has agreed is useful and that society has agreed can (and should, for efficiency purposes) go certain speeds in certain areas.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      Because someone may well maim or kill them sooner or later, if you're going to have cars, and will be a great bother for everyone involved. Look, I live somewhere people in all modes of transportation including foot mostly treat traffic laws as vague suggestions, but it's not so much a case of a driver refusing to stop for a pedestrian but the fact that pedestrians randomly crossing roads, especially at night and/or rainy weather, are running a non-trivial risk of getting hit.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      why is a sidewalk for pedestrians by default? is it unreasonable that cars aren't allowed on a sidewalk when pedestrians aren't using it?
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > why is a sidewalk for pedestrians by default? 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.
      - umanwizard 6y ago
        Almost everyone walks (and even those who don’t can still use sidewalks, with wheelchairs). “Pedestrian” isn’t some separate class of people. 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!
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Why not? People come first. That's how it works in other countries. I think in the UK pedestrians always have right of way, with a couple of exceptions (motorways and things.)
  - fastball 6y ago
    1. The person in the car is also a person, why shouldn't they have right of way. 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.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > 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.)
      - fastball 6y ago
        I have. They do not have the right of way. Vehicle operators merely have a high duty of care which can supersede right of way. 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.
  - Sodman 6y ago
    You have to remember there are also people in the cars who are now put in unnecessary danger by pedestrians jumping out in front of them. The worst part is that they are at the mercy of others to avoid this danger. Even if they see you unexpectedly moving in front of traffic and react in time, the 2-3 cars behind them also have to do the same for everyone to avoid injury. If you jump in front of moving cars, you should be personally liable for any injuries and damages caused by cars trying to avoid you. And this is all avoidable if the pedestrian walks a little further to get to the crosswalk, or waits a little longer for a walk signal.
- umanwizard 6y ago
  Such roads shouldn’t exist in cities.
Sodman 6y ago
I strongly disagree. We can argue where exactly the line should be, but most people should agree that pedestrian's shouldn't be able to just suddenly jump out in front of a fast-moving stream of heavy traffic and expect everyone to stop across all lanes for them. 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.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > 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". 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'.
  - Sodman 6y ago
    Actually the law in the UK is that Pedestrian's usually don't have the right of way outside of designated crossing areas [0]. Drivers are considered to have a "Heavy Duty of Care" since they are of course driving large dangerous vehicles and pedestrians are more vulnerable, but they still have the right of way on your average road. 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-have-right-of-way-on-roads/ https://www.birchallblackburn.co.uk/do-pedestrians-always-ha...
abfan1127 6y ago
illegal lane change? no, its just a car getting across a road. 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.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > 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?
  - abfan1127 6y ago
    I’ll offer 2 points of view. 1) I ride atvs in the sand dunes. There’s an unwritten rule that “tonnage rules” I.e. stay out of the way of bigger things. Regardless of right/wrong, you’re still dead if a dirt bike collides with a sand car. 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.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      1) bigger wins is a rule bullies use 2) roads were there for pedestrians long before cars were invented - they got taken from us for cars