31 ms·

Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

409 points by jseliger 6y ago

nodesocket 6y ago
“encounters with the police, especially for people of color.” Huh? How is enforcing people not dart out into streets and hit by cars racist or biased?
- yummypaint 6y ago
  https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-jaywalking-tickets-continues-into-2020/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-...
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  I assume because of selective enforcement. The more that we make normal everyday events technically illegal, the more likely the police will have to pick and choose what they enforce and what they let slide. Then you have ample opportunity for that discretion to be applied in a discriminatory way.
  - ravenstine 6y ago
    Sure, but why make a specific point about that with jaywalking? Can't that argument be made for just about any crime? Just seems like a useless red herring to make it about race when it doesn't need to be; it's a related but separate issue to whether jaywalking should be a crime in the first place.
    - majormajor 6y ago
      I think "is this something that often reinforces racial discrepancies" is a useful thing to know when evaluating should it be a crime in the first place. I think it's another point in the "con" column of having harsher treatment for it.
    - maxmorlocke 6y ago
      Because jaywalking is very frequently used by police to target communities of color. As an example, 90% of the jaywalking citations given in NYC in 2019 were issued to people of color.
      - dragontamer 6y ago
        Furthermore: Police use the jaywalking as an excuse to perform more invasive searching. https://ktla.com/news/local-news/versace-shoe-designer-says-he-was-racially-profiled-in-beverly-hills-video-shows-him-frisked-searched-police-say-its-for-jaywalking/ https://ktla.com/news/local-news/versace-shoe-designer-says-... "You were Jaywalking, so I'm going to check you for Weapons / Weed / etc. etc." ---------- I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the same time, "abusing" the Jaywalking laws to do so is certainly the wrong way of doing it. I recognize that racial profiling happens, even in urban centers where Police are given plenty of anti-racism training. I don't know what to do about that however, aside from making people at least aware of the issue. Police need some leeway to do their job correctly. But whenever its because "I smell weed" or "You were Jaywalking", that just makes people angry and is counterproductive.
        leetcrew 6y ago
        > I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the same time, "abusing" the Jaywalking laws to do so is certainly the wrong way of doing it. why exactly? it's hard for me to imagine a situation where a cop reasonably needs to detain someone but can't come up with even one possible charge.
        dragontamer 6y ago
        We all agree with random DUI checks, right? They're pretty effective at scaring off DUI-attempts.
    - mcherm 6y ago
      > Can't that argument be made for just about any crime? No. The argument is only effective for crimes that a large percentage of people do frequently but which is only seldomly enforced with criminal sanctions. And I am hard pressed to find any crime fitting that description that I would not be in favor of eliminating. I'm perfectly happy to start with jaywalking.
    - IshKebab 6y ago
      No, the argument only applies to "crimes" that are very commonly committed. It isn't a racist law in itself but it allows racism to flourish.
      - ravenstine 6y ago
        This, I don't get. It's quite common to point out the systemic racism in law enforcement when it comes to many common crimes. Why is it that people in this thread are speaking as if this can only be applied to jaywalking? It comes off as very dishonest. At some point, it made sense to enough people that jaywalking have a penalty that it was written into law, and it wasn't because a bunch of people agreed that it would allow cops to punish more black people. Doesn't mean they were right, but it's hardly different from an intent perspective than any other crime on the books. The only difference between jaywalking and speeding(another common way to be pulled over while black/brown) is that far fewer people consider it reasonable. Is it just because jaywalking is hardly a crime, thus its only conceivable utility is in discrimination? I'm just trying to understand what you're getting at.
        IshKebab 6y ago
        I think you're getting a bit confused. Nobody is saying that crimes like jaywalking were created for racists. The racism is an unexpected side effect.
    - lwhi 6y ago
      It's an example of a minor infraction, and police are most likely able to use their discretion with this type of lawbreaking. Other more serious crimes will almost definitely require a charge. The fact that their discretion overwhelmingly leads to the racial bias described, shows a situation where police behaviour needs to change. It's important to highlight it for this reason.
    - mindslight 6y ago
      Yes, the argument can be made for any rarely-enforced law on the books. But if the people fighting injustice are inspired to do so based on injustice against a specific group, then you should examine your own motivations before discouraging them. I'm generally opposed to such racism, but it's not like there is a good alternative in these times. It's unfortunate that the campaign against police unaccountability has crystallized around "Black Lives Matter", but it's hard to dispute that Blacks have been feeling most of the pain. If "All Lives Matter" were an alternative non-racist campaign against police unaccountability then we could debate the merits of each. Alas it's just a reactionary stand to maintain the status quo.
- art0rz 6y ago
  Selective enforcement?
- rafram 6y ago
  It’s a minor crime which people of color tend to be disproportionately cited for.
  - jimbob45 6y ago
    Isn’t the real causation here that they’re lower class? I would imagine high-class blacks don’t often get ticketed for jaywalking. Lower-class people tend to walk more for reasons related to expensive car maintenance. Are blacks more often lower-class? Sure, but that’s a different issue entirely.
    - LordDragonfang 6y ago
      While that's interesting conjecture, it doesn't bear out in reality in this case. From an article linked elsewhere in this chain[1]: >From Jan. 1 to March 31, the NYPD wrote 80 tickets for illegal crossing — less than one a day in a city of more than eight million people — and only one went to a person identified in police logs as “white.” So unless you think the "lower class" is 98% people of color, it's clear that the bias here is race-based, not inherent in the population. [1] https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-jaywalking-tickets-continues-into-2020/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-...
      - jimbob45 6y ago
        Right but we have no way of knowing how many walkers were blacks, how many black and white walkers actually jaywalked, and how many walkers of each race got let off on warnings. It’s a nice talking point, I’ll grant you, but it won’t hold up to scrutiny on HN.
        LordDragonfang 6y ago
        >how many black and white walkers actually jaywalked Are you seriously proposing that 98% people of color could be a representative sample of jaywalkers, or are you a bad troll? That pretty clearly shows a bias in the level of policing.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  Creating laws that almost everyone breaks and then enforcing them selectively is a great way to hide bias and racism. Edit: See also - loitering.
  - kerng 6y ago
    Unfortunately this is very correct.
  - pengaru 6y ago
    Yep, or hell even ridiculously low highway speed limits in some states, where everyone goes 10+ over. But I think it's also just ensuring a ready and plentiful supply of fines for fundraising.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  Same reason enforcing random pat-downs for illicit substances, or traffic stops for speeding, racist or biased. Because the people enforcing it are biased, and often racist. That's exactly why it's phrased as reducing encounters with police, because police encounters are disproportionately negative (or hostile) for people of color. Has nothing to do with the actual infraction. Of course, you'd know this if you'd paid any attention to the news, considering it's currently the third most major political issue US.
- standardUser 6y ago
  That's the problem with criminalizing basic activities like walking. Law enforcement becomes the entity that decides who gets in trouble for breaking the law.
stuaxo 6y ago
Can someone paste the content, I get "this site is not available in your country"?
- geostyx 6y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20201221183546/https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/12/21/jaywalking-decriminalization-is-coming-to-virginia-100-years-after-the-auto-industry-helped-make-it-a-crime/ https://web.archive.org/web/20201221183546/https://www.virgi...
erulabs 6y ago
Seeing as encounters with law enforcement are probably more deadly on average than jaywalking - I wholly support this change. Being poor in a car city is something most folks in the circles I run in now have never experienced or thought about. The documentary “Los Angeles Plays Itself” has a fantastic section about this.
- GhostVII 6y ago
  > Seeing as encounters with law enforcement are probably more deadly on average than jaywalking There are far more instances of jaywalking than police interactions, and yet pedestrian deaths are 6x higher than deaths from police. So no that is not true in any way, especially when you account for armed vs unarmed police shootings (~25 unarmed black people were shot and killed by police in 2019, where unarmed includes fake guns).
  - jgwil2 6y ago
    "Pedestrian deaths" does not equal "deaths caused by jaywalking." > There are far more instances of jaywalking than police interactions, and yet pedestrian deaths are 6x higher than deaths from police. The first assertion actually cuts against your argument. If there are far more instances of jaywalking than police encounters, then even if there are many more deaths caused by jaywalking, police encounters could still be deadlier on a per-instance basis.
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    >There are far more instances of jaywalking than police interactions, and yet pedestrian deaths are 6x higher than deaths from police. "And yet" is entirely the wrong conjunction here; if there are more instances of jaywalking than police encounters, then it logically follows there would be more deaths. In fact, I'd argue that there are far more than 6x as many instances of jaywalking than there are police encounters, which kind of undermines your whole point.
    - GhostVII 6y ago
      Ah yea I had that flipped. Not all 6k deaths are from jaywalking, and not all 1k police deaths are unjustified so probably a poor comparison regardless
hk__2 6y ago
This is what I get from France: > This site not available in your country I wonder what makes that website so special it can’t comply with GDPR.
- msla 6y ago
  I wonder what makes Europe so special it can demand companies outside of Europe comply with European law.
  - strictnein 6y ago
    It can't. A lot of local US press seems to have gotten bad legal advice.
    - iso947 6y ago
      I gather a lot of “local” press is owned by the same conglomerate
  - hmottestad 6y ago
    Probably because advertisement on webpages pay out regardless of if I as a European click on it.
  - asutekku 6y ago
    If they want to do business in europe they should follow the european laws.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Anon1096 6y ago
      This site clearly doesn't want to, but you still have people like the GP and others here complaining. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If commenters here want sites to have the option to not deal with Europe, then they shouldn't also turn around and chide the sites for making that choice.
umvi 6y ago
Jaywalking drives me crazy... sometimes I wish American culture was more German/Japanese in this area and Americans walked the extra 20 feet to the nearest crosswalk and waited for the light. A few times now I've had to tap my brakes for some guy dashing across the street to the island in the middle because he was too impatient to wait for the light to change. Sometimes it's a lady with a shopping cart. These aren't slow residential roads either, but roads around commercial centers with speed limits around 45 MPH. > In the Netherlands, for example, traffic engineers and urban planners have actually worked to lower the country’s curbs so as to encourage people to cross wherever they like. This I don't understand at all unless it's in low/slow traffic areas.
- jonplackett 6y ago
  In lots of places cities are actually built for pedestrians not motorists. Some of us prefer it that way.
- marricks 6y ago
  Many US cities are designed to be downright hostile to pedestrians, California in particular. Some areas in Orange County have blocks before cross walks, or cross walks only on one side of the street so you had to make the right decision a block ago about which side of the street to be on! Strip malls seemed designed to have people drive the 1k feet between businesses rather than having accessible walking. With city planning focused on driving you start to realize why pedestrians can behave so badly? If you're talking specifically about urban cities, I still bet Japan/Germany have been urban planning for sidewalks which encourages "good behavior".
  - nineplay 6y ago
    > Many US cities are designed to be downright hostile to pedestrians Exactly, which is why the decriminalization of jaywalking in those cities is a terrible idea. Orange County isn't going to be redesigned, so more jaywalkers means more pedestrian deaths.
    - marricks 6y ago
msla 6y ago
> Before the advent of the automobile, pedestrians in America were widely recognized as having the right of way in all situations. OK, let's go back to this. You can argue right-of-way with a ton of fiberglass and steel going 35 mph. Tell us all how that works out for you. Placing blame doesn't mean anything when the laws of physics dictate which one's going to be the winner in any given scenario.
- booleandilemma 6y ago
  Might doesn't make right.
  - bigwavedave 6y ago
    That's not the point OP is making. OP is saying that having the right-of-way does a fat lot of good to someone who now has to live life as a quadriplegic.
  - msla 6y ago
    It is invalid to derive an "is" from an "ought" in any situation. ("Cars ought not hurt people who have the right-of-way, therefore they won't.")
- majormajor 6y ago
  Maybe that's not a place the vehicle should be going 35mph, then. Maybe the vehicle should be smaller, instead of ever-larger SUVs and trucks. Maybe there should be crosswalks and signals. There's nothing in the laws of physics that dictate that roads should be hard to cross on foot, and that cars should move at their current speeds, and be designed the ways they are. Those are all choices.
  - segfaultbuserr 6y ago
    Maybe the cars should simply be banned at certain places, it's also a valid possibility. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18014283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18014283
  - 6y ago
dls2016 6y ago
Can we do shoplifting next? Make it a civil offense like wage theft?
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  For that matter, make wage theft criminal, since it accounts for so much more real value stolen.
  - dls2016 6y ago
    Very much not interested in locking up more people. Have you seen our (USA) numbers?
    - redler 6y ago
      Don't lock them up. But charge penalties that greatly exceed the value of the wage theft.
    - bena 6y ago
      If wage theft were a criminal offense, the people being locked up wouldn't necessarily be of the social class of people currently being locked up for non-violent offenses.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      Preventing abuse of the impoverished may drive that down more than criminalizing wage theft locks up.
- bigcorp-slave 6y ago
  Christ, why? Have you see what decriminalization of street crime has done to San Francisco? It’s a disaster.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    Decriminalization without functioning social work infra is this result. Just because SF is incompetent in this regard does not mean continued criminalization of minor offenses should continue. There’s nuance, and that nuance is critical to the discussion.
silveira 6y ago
I highly recommend the episode of the podcast 99% Invisible about this subject, The Modern Moloch. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-moloch/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern...
jawns 6y ago
My first year of college, I was cited for jaywalking. I was walking across a barren street in our small college town on my way to class, and there was a town cop standing against a wall of a nearby building waiting for an easy catch. I had fully crossed the street and was walking to a nearby building when I heard someone yell "Hey" behind me. I contemplated not even turning around, because I wanted to get to class on time, but I did ... and saw the officer standing on the other side. He didn't feel like coming to me, so he instructed me to re-cross the street back to him. "Are you sure you want me to jaywalk back?" I asked. "Isn't that dangerous?" He rolled his eyes and gave me the ticket.
- Leherenn 6y ago
  Is jaywalking illegal all the time? Here it's only illegal if there's a crossing less than 50 m away.
  - altdatathrow 6y ago
    > small college town That's the key phrase. Police in small towns of America have nothing better to do than setup ways of levying fines against outsiders so they can afford to upgrade their cruisers to the latest dodge chargers or outfit everyone with DOD hand-me-down weaponry.
    - chokeartist 6y ago
      Put the beer bong down or I will be forced to open up on you with the Mk19 grenade launcher. I apologize son, but I have no other choice.
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      Police in small towns are mostly fine and don't care about petty stuff because they have meth labs and whatnot to give them perspective. Police in wealthy suburbs, rural retirement small towns, tourist destinations and college towns are mostly not fine because they don't have much Real Crime(TM) to give them perspective.
_ZeD_ 6y ago
This site not available in your country
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
neonate 6y ago
https://archive.is/iKJpd https://archive.is/iKJpd https://web.archive.org/web/20201221183546/https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/12/21/jaywalking-decriminalization-is-coming-to-virginia-100-years-after-the-auto-industry-helped-make-it-a-crime/ https://web.archive.org/web/20201221183546/https://www.virgi...
woodruffw 6y ago
We in the US do an absolutely horrific job of recognizing and compensating for the externalities of our automotive culture. The criminalization of jaywalking is one major aspect, but also consider: 1. The construction of highways through poor (read: minority) urban areas, causing mass respiratory disease and premature deaths[1]. 2. Allocation of free public space (car parking) to drivers, effectively subsidizing (disproportionately suburban) commuters at the expense of residents. 3. A general culture of entitlement to the road among motorists, resulting in tens of thousands of pedestrian and cyclist injuries a year with virtually no legal (beyond costly civil) recourse. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/nyregion/29asthma.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/nyregion/29asthma.html
- AtlasBarfed 6y ago
  1) I will be curious to see if the BEV revolution happens there will be a huge statistical change in cancer rates in the US. 3) as a cyclist who transitions from commuting by bike in the summer to car in the winter, it is astonishing how my psychology is impacted by driving in the two modes. I am so much more impatient and angry from driving. There is just a nasty psychological feedback cycle of the obvious pure potential of the automobile as a time savings device and the visceral feeling of losing that when encountering any traffic or obstacle. At least I get the cycling part to enlighten my perspective. Most americans are car-encased permanently and oblivious.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    Not sure where you live but I am pretty far north. I'm in a similar situation but in the winter I ride the bus. My psychology changes just based on the lack of light. Driving is definitely super stressful but combine that with short, dark days and less exercise and it just compounds.
  - rightbyte 6y ago
    Sadly the tires them self seems to be a big problem. I wonder how big share of air polution they are responsible of.
BrandoElFollito 6y ago
I cannot get to the site (blocked for EU) but the rule in France is two way. The driver must not enforce its priority when there is someone crossing the street at a place they should not. The price is high. A pedestrian can cross anywhere but has priority only on a zebra crossing. They are however expected to use a zebra crossing if there is one less 50 m away. It may cost you 11€ if you do not. The reality is of course that people cross everywhere and it takes a lot of self control not to crosson a red light when there is nobody (I did that when I had small kids to give the right example)
- satellite2 6y ago
  Exactly. And typically, the forensics would try to determine if a driver that hit a pedestrian in a situation where it could have been avoided at least tried to brake. If not, the driver would typically be charged for negligence and it would launch an investigation for murder.
  - garmaine 6y ago
    > and it would launch an investigation for murder manslaughter, I assume?
    - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
      People exaggerate things for internet points. In every jurisdiction where intent matters you would be correct.
      - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
        You may want to hold on with the pitchfork for a moment. TL;DR If @satellite2 is, like myself, French, we do not have separate words for "murder" and "manslaughter" in the everyday language. Longer version: we have the verb "tuer" ("to kill") which can be applied to people, flies, bears, time or boredom. It just mean to go from a state of "live/be" to "not live/be". We then have the noun "homicide". It is never used in the everyday language (but would be in legal proceedings and sometimes on the TV news when they want to qualify the act). Its etymology is "homme" + "occire" ("man" + "old French word for kill"). It means "to kill a man". There is no connotation beside that and you add the adjective "volontaire" or "involontaire" ("intended" or "unintended") to make the English difference between "murder" and "manslaughter". And then plenty of other legal qualifications (premeditation or not etc.) Again: this is a word you would not use in everyday conversation. Please note that there is no verb derived from "homicide". It is only a noun. In many cases people will use "murder" to mean "someone was killed somehow", while technically "murder" ("meurtre" in French) is an intended act. But since our "manslaughter" ("homicide volontaire") is too long we use "murder".
rwhitman 6y ago
This is entirely about the same politics of safety we're seeing play out with the pandemic. If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians. As Americans our priority has been individual convenience, over collective safety of our neighbors. Its shifting slowly, but for the most part this is a battle we're grappling with as a society on multiple fronts right now.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians. There is a middle ground: the law could say that, while you can't get a ticket just for crossing a street outside the marked crosswalks, if you do cross that way and get hit by a car, the presumption is that you were at fault--whereas, if you get hit by a car while you are in the marked crosswalks, the presumption is that the driver of the car was at fault. That would basically reflect the same presumption that is in our current laws, but it would remove the excuse for cops to mess with people when they haven't caused any harm. Note that "presumption" does not mean an automatic finding of fault; it just means that whoever is presumed to be at fault has the burden of establishing that they weren't, if they believe they weren't. That's a common situation in law. In short, making jaywalking itself--crossing a street outside the marked crosswalks--illegal is not about safety at all; it's about local municipalities finding ways to shake down people for money. Just like most traffic laws.
  - mulmen 6y ago
    Who is at fault if I am jaywalking but get hit by a car that is speeding?
    - pdonis 6y ago
      In a situation like that, where there is a presumption of fault on both sides, fault would probably end up being split 50-50. Which in practice usually means each party ends up paying their own costs. A large disparity in costs (as would probably be the case in the example you give) might change that, but it would probably end up having to be decided in court. (Note that what I am describing would be the case under current law wherever jaywalking is illegal, not just under the hypothetical law I described.)
627467 6y ago
"the auto industry made it a crime", I mean, we hear lots of allegations that USA is actually ruled by corporations but was this crime not established as such by elected officials in an elected institution? Jaywalking is a ridiculous "crime", no doubt. But let's not go blame some abstract group (auto industry) for democratic society's failure.
- mulmen 6y ago
  Well the crime was democratically instituted in a world where the "abstract group" literally bought up all the public transit they could and then shut it down to create more drivers. Who then vote.
- klyrs 6y ago
  Only, the history of this is well documented. The auto industry consists of auto manufacturers, dealerships, and their lobbyists. Here's a couple of articles that are more specific: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 And, yes. Politicians are complicit in this too.
- njharman 6y ago
  Let’s not blame abstract group/process “democratic society” when it’s clear that a concrete commercial organization, the auto industry, had profit motive to advertise and lobby for favorable PR and legislation.
underseacables 6y ago
It’s very interesting to visit compact cities like San Francisco, DC, and NYY, and see how much people jaywalk without a worry. Having walked across the street outside of a crosswalk an uncountable number of times, I cannot recall ever being stopped or being alone. Seems people can adequately decide the risk. It would be better to put the onerous on safety back on to vehicles, but this new law could be used to justify blocking traffic.
- momokoko 6y ago
  This is because, at least in California and New York, jaywalking is not a crime. It is a civil infraction. This means there is no criminal record or court/jail time. It’s a ticket just like a parking or speeding ticket. I find it hard to believe people believe we should be allowed to just hang out in the street. It’s there for general safety of everyone. Could we adjust the rule to account for situations where no cars are around? Sure. But obviously we can’t have a rule where people are allowed to just cross busy city streets at will anywhere. It would be terrible for overall mobility in the city as well as dangerous. These articles are just typical internet extremism and conspiracy theories about “Big Something”. It’s a non issue most places.
  - ck425 6y ago
    > But obviously we can’t have a rule where people are allowed to just cross busy city streets at will anywhere. It would be terrible for overall mobility in the city as well as dangerous. That's how many many countries operate and it's actually relatively safe.
- nomel 6y ago
  > San Francisco, DC, and NYY, and see how much people jaywalk without a worry. I'm only familiar with San Fransisco, but the speed difference between a car in San Fransisco and a human is often pretty slight. Bicycles are usually the highest speed object.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Having lived in several major cities I think that most traffic (pedestrian, car and bike) behaves reasonably and predictably. Online discussion is dominated by people who are only ever in one of the above groups and wants the law to completely and totally favor them at the expense of the others. I don't think this jaywalking thing is a big deal or that much changes with/without a law.
CalRobert 6y ago
Criminalizing jaywalking wasn't about making it illegal to walk across the street. It was about making it legal to kill people doing so with your car. If you want to kill someone in the US it's de facto legal to do so with your car. Just be sober and say you didn't see them.
- nomel 6y ago
  As someone that nearly hit someone that walked out from behind a bush, with a chemically fueled disregard for the world, I don't think the rules are so bad. As unpopular as the opinion appears to be here, I don't like the idea of having to dodge humans randomly entering the road. Should we also take down the signals and barriers that prevent cars from crossing train tracks, since they have the similar goal of preventing a high speed object, with orders of magnitude more weight, from colliding with something relatively squishy? edit: No need to immediately downvote. I would enjoy some discussion.
  - detaro 6y ago
    > with a chemically fueled disregard for the world, a law against it doesn't stop that kind of person. And the rest of the world does pretty much fine without strict jaywalking laws, which doesn't mean that there are no laws regulating how pedestrians behave when interacting with street traffic, just that crossing a street safely isn't be default illegal. (and most people have the self-preservation sense to figure that out). It's also easy to create situations where not crossing a street at all is extremely impractical, and flat-out banning it then is not a good idea.
  - thex10 6y ago
    > I don't like the idea of having to dodge humans randomly entering the road Attitudes like that are why cars are the number one killer of small children in the USA. I think the idea is that car drivers should be able to see a human and adequately respond to avoid deadly collision (this usually means driving slowly and with more caution in areas where there are humans. this also can mean driving a lighter/smaller vehicle but that seems harder to do nowadays with cars getting beefier over time). Trains, after operators see an obstruction on the tracks, literally cannot respond in time.
sizt 6y ago
You can't buy a tank. But a 16 year old with a Chevy Malibu? Nooo problem. American's are addicted to car culture.
JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Lots of vitriol and stories. The bottom line is, pedestrians and cars don't belong on the same piece of road. The difference in speeds is too great to be safe.
- carapace 6y ago
  FWIW I think a sane (ground) transportation system would have at least three or even four inter-connected subsystems: 1. Pedestrians 2. Bikes 3a. Cars 3b. Buses 3c. Trucks (shipping) 4. Trains (And we're starting to get motorized bikes and scooters which might be their own category, at least by speed/power/safety measures.)
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  They figured all this "mixed traffic safety" stuff out during the industrial revolution (the first time people frequently shared the workplace with big fast rolling things that could kill them). The only reason we're still arguing about the details is because everyone wants their pet favorite type of traffic to be favored by law.
ck425 6y ago
Jaywalking is such ridiculous 'crime'. It's not a thing here in the UK and when an American friend first explained it at uni I thought they were winding me up. It's no wonder American cities are so unwalkable and that America has an obesity crisis
- DC-3 6y ago
  In fairness we also have an obesity crisis.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
Just want to point out how special interests can actually pretty insidiously change your viewpoint by making you think "that's the way things have always been". It was relatively recently that I discovered that jaywalking, as a crime, was a distinctly American phenomenon, when in an HN discussion someone mentioned that British folk think the crime of jaywalking is insane (in the UK you can cross pretty much wherever you want as long as you're not impeding traffic). My initial reaction was "Wait, that's nuts, of course jaywalking should not be allowed." I didn't even realize how the "default" of what I was used to in the US was basically just constructed by the auto industry for their benefit. Glad this is coming to light and hope more places get rid of jaywalking.
- ck425 6y ago
  When an American friend explained it to me at uni I honestly thought they were trying to trick. It's just such an absurd concept, like how does anyone walk anywhere? Then I realised they don't.
  - garmaine 6y ago
    I've been to business hotels in the USA in my travels that literally don't have pedestrian access. There's a road without a pedestrian sidewalk up to the front of the hotel, and that's it. You CANNOT get in or out without a car. It is crazy.
    - iso947 6y ago
      Sounds like crowne plaza in Birmingham (UK), a stones throw from new street station. Birmingham is very walkable.
  - geggam 6y ago
    Read many posts and what many folks are missing is the amount of space the US has... it takes more than 1 day of driving to get across Texas alone. Where I live there arent even roads being improved in many areas. You just drive across the dirt None of the countries folks are comparing have close to the amount of space to cover. Yes bigger metro areas are dense enough to have public transit... problem is most folks dont live in that area and commute in. Example ...areas like the SF bay area has folks traveling 2 hrs 1 way on train or car to get to the office
carapace 6y ago
I rarely recommend videos but this one in re: Jaywalking is funny and informative: "The Real Reason Jaywalking Is A Crime (Adam Ruins Everything)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM I was telling a coworker about this once and he didn't believe me, but it was basically a deliberate and successful attempt at mass social engineering through domestic propaganda. We went from vilifying reckless drivers as "speed demons" to vilifying pedestrians as "jays" (yokels or hicks.)
hosteur 6y ago
> This site not available in your country
- tomxor 6y ago
  Yup, this is not a website.
frickenhamster 6y ago
Fucking stupid. I used to live in a college town where no one obeyed traffic laws. I can't tell you how many car on car, car in bike, car on people accidents were caused by dumbasses walking into open traffic.
- standardUser 6y ago
  If bike and pedestrian traffic is that dense, they should lower speed limits and install speed bumps.
  - frickenhamster 6y ago
    There are. Pedestrians don't care and will literately walk into open traffic. I've seen the same thing in every major city.
    - thex10 6y ago
      Were the drivers impaired? Why couldn't they see the people, or drive slowly and carefully enough to not kill?
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    It's not the density, it's the predictability. Predictably traffic is safe traffic. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about pedestrians, cars or bikes, the ability to accurately anticipate other parties moves is what makes for safety. College campuses suck so bad for safety because you have people from tons of different regions with different etiquette and standards, in a new environment and nobody can predict what anybody else is about to do. Add in the drunks and it's amazing they're as safe as they are.
- iso947 6y ago
  The common problem seems to be the car
u801e 6y ago
Another related law is the requirement for cyclists to keep as far right as practicable regardless of whether or not there are marked lanes for traffic [1]. Most states have a law that requires vehicles moving at less than the normal speed of traffic to use the right most lane that serves their destination. But the law that specifically applies to cyclists states that they have to keep as far right as practicable within the right most lane itself (with some exceptions). For instance, here's the law [2] in New York: >> Upon all roadways, any bicycle or in-line skate shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic They state the reason is to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic. They don't mention anything about cyclist safety. [1] https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/ https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyc... [2] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1234 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1234
AhmedHassan2027 6y ago
Yes! "AHA" (Avoid Hasty Abstractions) is the remedy to too much "DRY".
bravura 6y ago
Tidbit: Jaywalking is more typically associated with hard-charging city dwellers, but it means "country walking". Specifically, the word "jay" colloquially referred to a country bumpkin. Traffic lights were first installed in cities. People from rural areas were not aware of the traffic light system and it was the country folk, not the city people, who were most originally associated with perpetrating jaywalking. Hence, "country walking". [can't read the article because it's blocked in the EU, not sure if they covered this]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cementstripes 6y ago
I had the misfortune of talking to a psychopath recently who admitted to intentionally killing a pedestrian. It made me wonder how many traffic deaths are actually homicides. Legally there is zero accountability so it's the perfect crime.
mbar84 6y ago
I remember a work colleague from Canada asking if it was OK that we were walking across a busy street in Frankfurt Germany. I was a bit confused, but said that, Yes it's OK to walk across the street. In retrospect I might have added, you also don't have to ask anybody if it's OK to go to the bathroom. North America is a strange place.

409 points by jseliger 6y ago

“encounters with the police, especially for people of color.” Huh? How is enforcing people not dart out into streets and hit by cars racist or biased?

yummypaint 6y ago
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-jaywalking-tickets-continues-into-2020/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-...
rootusrootus 6y ago
I assume because of selective enforcement. The more that we make normal everyday events technically illegal, the more likely the police will have to pick and choose what they enforce and what they let slide. Then you have ample opportunity for that discretion to be applied in a discriminatory way.
- ravenstine 6y ago
  Sure, but why make a specific point about that with jaywalking? Can't that argument be made for just about any crime? Just seems like a useless red herring to make it about race when it doesn't need to be; it's a related but separate issue to whether jaywalking should be a crime in the first place.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    I think "is this something that often reinforces racial discrepancies" is a useful thing to know when evaluating should it be a crime in the first place. I think it's another point in the "con" column of having harsher treatment for it.
  - maxmorlocke 6y ago
    Because jaywalking is very frequently used by police to target communities of color. As an example, 90% of the jaywalking citations given in NYC in 2019 were issued to people of color.
    - dragontamer 6y ago
      Furthermore: Police use the jaywalking as an excuse to perform more invasive searching. https://ktla.com/news/local-news/versace-shoe-designer-says-he-was-racially-profiled-in-beverly-hills-video-shows-him-frisked-searched-police-say-its-for-jaywalking/ https://ktla.com/news/local-news/versace-shoe-designer-says-... "You were Jaywalking, so I'm going to check you for Weapons / Weed / etc. etc." ---------- I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the same time, "abusing" the Jaywalking laws to do so is certainly the wrong way of doing it. I recognize that racial profiling happens, even in urban centers where Police are given plenty of anti-racism training. I don't know what to do about that however, aside from making people at least aware of the issue. Police need some leeway to do their job correctly. But whenever its because "I smell weed" or "You were Jaywalking", that just makes people angry and is counterproductive.
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        > I think there should be some provision for Police to officially detain someone if they think there's an issue (but can't quite find a legal reason of doing so...). But at the same time, "abusing" the Jaywalking laws to do so is certainly the wrong way of doing it. why exactly? it's hard for me to imagine a situation where a cop reasonably needs to detain someone but can't come up with even one possible charge.
        dragontamer 6y ago
        We all agree with random DUI checks, right? They're pretty effective at scaring off DUI-attempts.
  - mcherm 6y ago
    > Can't that argument be made for just about any crime? No. The argument is only effective for crimes that a large percentage of people do frequently but which is only seldomly enforced with criminal sanctions. And I am hard pressed to find any crime fitting that description that I would not be in favor of eliminating. I'm perfectly happy to start with jaywalking.
  - IshKebab 6y ago
    No, the argument only applies to "crimes" that are very commonly committed. It isn't a racist law in itself but it allows racism to flourish.
    - ravenstine 6y ago
      This, I don't get. It's quite common to point out the systemic racism in law enforcement when it comes to many common crimes. Why is it that people in this thread are speaking as if this can only be applied to jaywalking? It comes off as very dishonest. At some point, it made sense to enough people that jaywalking have a penalty that it was written into law, and it wasn't because a bunch of people agreed that it would allow cops to punish more black people. Doesn't mean they were right, but it's hardly different from an intent perspective than any other crime on the books. The only difference between jaywalking and speeding(another common way to be pulled over while black/brown) is that far fewer people consider it reasonable. Is it just because jaywalking is hardly a crime, thus its only conceivable utility is in discrimination? I'm just trying to understand what you're getting at.
      - IshKebab 6y ago
        I think you're getting a bit confused. Nobody is saying that crimes like jaywalking were created for racists. The racism is an unexpected side effect.
  - lwhi 6y ago
    It's an example of a minor infraction, and police are most likely able to use their discretion with this type of lawbreaking. Other more serious crimes will almost definitely require a charge. The fact that their discretion overwhelmingly leads to the racial bias described, shows a situation where police behaviour needs to change. It's important to highlight it for this reason.
  - mindslight 6y ago
    Yes, the argument can be made for any rarely-enforced law on the books. But if the people fighting injustice are inspired to do so based on injustice against a specific group, then you should examine your own motivations before discouraging them. I'm generally opposed to such racism, but it's not like there is a good alternative in these times. It's unfortunate that the campaign against police unaccountability has crystallized around "Black Lives Matter", but it's hard to dispute that Blacks have been feeling most of the pain. If "All Lives Matter" were an alternative non-racist campaign against police unaccountability then we could debate the merits of each. Alas it's just a reactionary stand to maintain the status quo.
art0rz 6y ago
Selective enforcement?
rafram 6y ago
It’s a minor crime which people of color tend to be disproportionately cited for.
- jimbob45 6y ago
  Isn’t the real causation here that they’re lower class? I would imagine high-class blacks don’t often get ticketed for jaywalking. Lower-class people tend to walk more for reasons related to expensive car maintenance. Are blacks more often lower-class? Sure, but that’s a different issue entirely.
  - LordDragonfang 6y ago
    While that's interesting conjecture, it doesn't bear out in reality in this case. From an article linked elsewhere in this chain[1]: >From Jan. 1 to March 31, the NYPD wrote 80 tickets for illegal crossing — less than one a day in a city of more than eight million people — and only one went to a person identified in police logs as “white.” So unless you think the "lower class" is 98% people of color, it's clear that the bias here is race-based, not inherent in the population. [1] https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-jaywalking-tickets-continues-into-2020/ https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2020/05/07/nypds-racial-bias-in-...
    - jimbob45 6y ago
      Right but we have no way of knowing how many walkers were blacks, how many black and white walkers actually jaywalked, and how many walkers of each race got let off on warnings. It’s a nice talking point, I’ll grant you, but it won’t hold up to scrutiny on HN.
      - LordDragonfang 6y ago
        >how many black and white walkers actually jaywalked Are you seriously proposing that 98% people of color could be a representative sample of jaywalkers, or are you a bad troll? That pretty clearly shows a bias in the level of policing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AlexandrB 6y ago
Creating laws that almost everyone breaks and then enforcing them selectively is a great way to hide bias and racism. Edit: See also - loitering.
- kerng 6y ago
  Unfortunately this is very correct.
- pengaru 6y ago
  Yep, or hell even ridiculously low highway speed limits in some states, where everyone goes 10+ over. But I think it's also just ensuring a ready and plentiful supply of fines for fundraising.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
LordDragonfang 6y ago
Same reason enforcing random pat-downs for illicit substances, or traffic stops for speeding, racist or biased. Because the people enforcing it are biased, and often racist. That's exactly why it's phrased as reducing encounters with police, because police encounters are disproportionately negative (or hostile) for people of color. Has nothing to do with the actual infraction. Of course, you'd know this if you'd paid any attention to the news, considering it's currently the third most major political issue US.
standardUser 6y ago
That's the problem with criminalizing basic activities like walking. Law enforcement becomes the entity that decides who gets in trouble for breaking the law.

stuaxo 6y ago

Can someone paste the content, I get "this site is not available in your country"?

geostyx 6y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20201221183546/https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/12/21/jaywalking-decriminalization-is-coming-to-virginia-100-years-after-the-auto-industry-helped-make-it-a-crime/ https://web.archive.org/web/20201221183546/https://www.virgi...

erulabs 6y ago

Seeing as encounters with law enforcement are probably more deadly on average than jaywalking - I wholly support this change. Being poor in a car city is something most folks in the circles I run in now have never experienced or thought about. The documentary “Los Angeles Plays Itself” has a fantastic section about this.

GhostVII 6y ago
> Seeing as encounters with law enforcement are probably more deadly on average than jaywalking There are far more instances of jaywalking than police interactions, and yet pedestrian deaths are 6x higher than deaths from police. So no that is not true in any way, especially when you account for armed vs unarmed police shootings (~25 unarmed black people were shot and killed by police in 2019, where unarmed includes fake guns).
- jgwil2 6y ago
  "Pedestrian deaths" does not equal "deaths caused by jaywalking." > There are far more instances of jaywalking than police interactions, and yet pedestrian deaths are 6x higher than deaths from police. The first assertion actually cuts against your argument. If there are far more instances of jaywalking than police encounters, then even if there are many more deaths caused by jaywalking, police encounters could still be deadlier on a per-instance basis.
- LordDragonfang 6y ago
  >There are far more instances of jaywalking than police interactions, and yet pedestrian deaths are 6x higher than deaths from police. "And yet" is entirely the wrong conjunction here; if there are more instances of jaywalking than police encounters, then it logically follows there would be more deaths. In fact, I'd argue that there are far more than 6x as many instances of jaywalking than there are police encounters, which kind of undermines your whole point.
  - GhostVII 6y ago
    Ah yea I had that flipped. Not all 6k deaths are from jaywalking, and not all 1k police deaths are unjustified so probably a poor comparison regardless

hk__2 6y ago

This is what I get from France: > This site not available in your country I wonder what makes that website so special it can’t comply with GDPR.

msla 6y ago
I wonder what makes Europe so special it can demand companies outside of Europe comply with European law.
- strictnein 6y ago
  It can't. A lot of local US press seems to have gotten bad legal advice.
  - iso947 6y ago
    I gather a lot of “local” press is owned by the same conglomerate
- hmottestad 6y ago
  Probably because advertisement on webpages pay out regardless of if I as a European click on it.
- asutekku 6y ago
  If they want to do business in europe they should follow the european laws.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Anon1096 6y ago
    This site clearly doesn't want to, but you still have people like the GP and others here complaining. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If commenters here want sites to have the option to not deal with Europe, then they shouldn't also turn around and chide the sites for making that choice.

umvi 6y ago

Jaywalking drives me crazy... sometimes I wish American culture was more German/Japanese in this area and Americans walked the extra 20 feet to the nearest crosswalk and waited for the light. A few times now I've had to tap my brakes for some guy dashing across the street to the island in the middle because he was too impatient to wait for the light to change. Sometimes it's a lady with a shopping cart. These aren't slow residential roads either, but roads around commercial centers with speed limits around 45 MPH. > In the Netherlands, for example, traffic engineers and urban planners have actually worked to lower the country’s curbs so as to encourage people to cross wherever they like. This I don't understand at all unless it's in low/slow traffic areas.

jonplackett 6y ago
In lots of places cities are actually built for pedestrians not motorists. Some of us prefer it that way.
marricks 6y ago
Many US cities are designed to be downright hostile to pedestrians, California in particular. Some areas in Orange County have blocks before cross walks, or cross walks only on one side of the street so you had to make the right decision a block ago about which side of the street to be on! Strip malls seemed designed to have people drive the 1k feet between businesses rather than having accessible walking. With city planning focused on driving you start to realize why pedestrians can behave so badly? If you're talking specifically about urban cities, I still bet Japan/Germany have been urban planning for sidewalks which encourages "good behavior".
- nineplay 6y ago
  > Many US cities are designed to be downright hostile to pedestrians Exactly, which is why the decriminalization of jaywalking in those cities is a terrible idea. Orange County isn't going to be redesigned, so more jaywalkers means more pedestrian deaths.
  - marricks 6y ago

msla 6y ago

> Before the advent of the automobile, pedestrians in America were widely recognized as having the right of way in all situations. OK, let's go back to this. You can argue right-of-way with a ton of fiberglass and steel going 35 mph. Tell us all how that works out for you. Placing blame doesn't mean anything when the laws of physics dictate which one's going to be the winner in any given scenario.

booleandilemma 6y ago
Might doesn't make right.
- bigwavedave 6y ago
  That's not the point OP is making. OP is saying that having the right-of-way does a fat lot of good to someone who now has to live life as a quadriplegic.
- msla 6y ago
  It is invalid to derive an "is" from an "ought" in any situation. ("Cars ought not hurt people who have the right-of-way, therefore they won't.")
majormajor 6y ago
Maybe that's not a place the vehicle should be going 35mph, then. Maybe the vehicle should be smaller, instead of ever-larger SUVs and trucks. Maybe there should be crosswalks and signals. There's nothing in the laws of physics that dictate that roads should be hard to cross on foot, and that cars should move at their current speeds, and be designed the ways they are. Those are all choices.
- segfaultbuserr 6y ago
  Maybe the cars should simply be banned at certain places, it's also a valid possibility. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18014283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18014283
- 6y ago

dls2016 6y ago

Can we do shoplifting next? Make it a civil offense like wage theft?

LordDragonfang 6y ago
For that matter, make wage theft criminal, since it accounts for so much more real value stolen.
- dls2016 6y ago
  Very much not interested in locking up more people. Have you seen our (USA) numbers?
  - redler 6y ago
    Don't lock them up. But charge penalties that greatly exceed the value of the wage theft.
  - bena 6y ago
    If wage theft were a criminal offense, the people being locked up wouldn't necessarily be of the social class of people currently being locked up for non-violent offenses.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    Preventing abuse of the impoverished may drive that down more than criminalizing wage theft locks up.
bigcorp-slave 6y ago
Christ, why? Have you see what decriminalization of street crime has done to San Francisco? It’s a disaster.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  Decriminalization without functioning social work infra is this result. Just because SF is incompetent in this regard does not mean continued criminalization of minor offenses should continue. There’s nuance, and that nuance is critical to the discussion.

silveira 6y ago

I highly recommend the episode of the podcast 99% Invisible about this subject, The Modern Moloch. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern-moloch/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/episode-76-the-modern...

jawns 6y ago

My first year of college, I was cited for jaywalking. I was walking across a barren street in our small college town on my way to class, and there was a town cop standing against a wall of a nearby building waiting for an easy catch. I had fully crossed the street and was walking to a nearby building when I heard someone yell "Hey" behind me. I contemplated not even turning around, because I wanted to get to class on time, but I did ... and saw the officer standing on the other side. He didn't feel like coming to me, so he instructed me to re-cross the street back to him. "Are you sure you want me to jaywalk back?" I asked. "Isn't that dangerous?" He rolled his eyes and gave me the ticket.

Leherenn 6y ago
Is jaywalking illegal all the time? Here it's only illegal if there's a crossing less than 50 m away.
- altdatathrow 6y ago
  > small college town That's the key phrase. Police in small towns of America have nothing better to do than setup ways of levying fines against outsiders so they can afford to upgrade their cruisers to the latest dodge chargers or outfit everyone with DOD hand-me-down weaponry.
  - chokeartist 6y ago
    Put the beer bong down or I will be forced to open up on you with the Mk19 grenade launcher. I apologize son, but I have no other choice.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    Police in small towns are mostly fine and don't care about petty stuff because they have meth labs and whatnot to give them perspective. Police in wealthy suburbs, rural retirement small towns, tourist destinations and college towns are mostly not fine because they don't have much Real Crime(TM) to give them perspective.

_ZeD_ 6y ago

This site not available in your country

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

neonate 6y ago

https://archive.is/iKJpd https://archive.is/iKJpd https://web.archive.org/web/20201221183546/https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/12/21/jaywalking-decriminalization-is-coming-to-virginia-100-years-after-the-auto-industry-helped-make-it-a-crime/ https://web.archive.org/web/20201221183546/https://www.virgi...

woodruffw 6y ago

We in the US do an absolutely horrific job of recognizing and compensating for the externalities of our automotive culture. The criminalization of jaywalking is one major aspect, but also consider: 1. The construction of highways through poor (read: minority) urban areas, causing mass respiratory disease and premature deaths[1]. 2. Allocation of free public space (car parking) to drivers, effectively subsidizing (disproportionately suburban) commuters at the expense of residents. 3. A general culture of entitlement to the road among motorists, resulting in tens of thousands of pedestrian and cyclist injuries a year with virtually no legal (beyond costly civil) recourse. [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/nyregion/29asthma.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/nyregion/29asthma.html

AtlasBarfed 6y ago
1) I will be curious to see if the BEV revolution happens there will be a huge statistical change in cancer rates in the US. 3) as a cyclist who transitions from commuting by bike in the summer to car in the winter, it is astonishing how my psychology is impacted by driving in the two modes. I am so much more impatient and angry from driving. There is just a nasty psychological feedback cycle of the obvious pure potential of the automobile as a time savings device and the visceral feeling of losing that when encountering any traffic or obstacle. At least I get the cycling part to enlighten my perspective. Most americans are car-encased permanently and oblivious.
- mulmen 6y ago
  Not sure where you live but I am pretty far north. I'm in a similar situation but in the winter I ride the bus. My psychology changes just based on the lack of light. Driving is definitely super stressful but combine that with short, dark days and less exercise and it just compounds.
- rightbyte 6y ago
  Sadly the tires them self seems to be a big problem. I wonder how big share of air polution they are responsible of.

BrandoElFollito 6y ago

I cannot get to the site (blocked for EU) but the rule in France is two way. The driver must not enforce its priority when there is someone crossing the street at a place they should not. The price is high. A pedestrian can cross anywhere but has priority only on a zebra crossing. They are however expected to use a zebra crossing if there is one less 50 m away. It may cost you 11€ if you do not. The reality is of course that people cross everywhere and it takes a lot of self control not to crosson a red light when there is nobody (I did that when I had small kids to give the right example)

satellite2 6y ago
Exactly. And typically, the forensics would try to determine if a driver that hit a pedestrian in a situation where it could have been avoided at least tried to brake. If not, the driver would typically be charged for negligence and it would launch an investigation for murder.
- garmaine 6y ago
  > and it would launch an investigation for murder manslaughter, I assume?
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    People exaggerate things for internet points. In every jurisdiction where intent matters you would be correct.
    - BrandoElFollito 6y ago
      You may want to hold on with the pitchfork for a moment. TL;DR If @satellite2 is, like myself, French, we do not have separate words for "murder" and "manslaughter" in the everyday language. Longer version: we have the verb "tuer" ("to kill") which can be applied to people, flies, bears, time or boredom. It just mean to go from a state of "live/be" to "not live/be". We then have the noun "homicide". It is never used in the everyday language (but would be in legal proceedings and sometimes on the TV news when they want to qualify the act). Its etymology is "homme" + "occire" ("man" + "old French word for kill"). It means "to kill a man". There is no connotation beside that and you add the adjective "volontaire" or "involontaire" ("intended" or "unintended") to make the English difference between "murder" and "manslaughter". And then plenty of other legal qualifications (premeditation or not etc.) Again: this is a word you would not use in everyday conversation. Please note that there is no verb derived from "homicide". It is only a noun. In many cases people will use "murder" to mean "someone was killed somehow", while technically "murder" ("meurtre" in French) is an intended act. But since our "manslaughter" ("homicide volontaire") is too long we use "murder".

rwhitman 6y ago

This is entirely about the same politics of safety we're seeing play out with the pandemic. If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians. As Americans our priority has been individual convenience, over collective safety of our neighbors. Its shifting slowly, but for the most part this is a battle we're grappling with as a society on multiple fronts right now.

pdonis 6y ago
> If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians. There is a middle ground: the law could say that, while you can't get a ticket just for crossing a street outside the marked crosswalks, if you do cross that way and get hit by a car, the presumption is that you were at fault--whereas, if you get hit by a car while you are in the marked crosswalks, the presumption is that the driver of the car was at fault. That would basically reflect the same presumption that is in our current laws, but it would remove the excuse for cops to mess with people when they haven't caused any harm. Note that "presumption" does not mean an automatic finding of fault; it just means that whoever is presumed to be at fault has the burden of establishing that they weren't, if they believe they weren't. That's a common situation in law. In short, making jaywalking itself--crossing a street outside the marked crosswalks--illegal is not about safety at all; it's about local municipalities finding ways to shake down people for money. Just like most traffic laws.
- mulmen 6y ago
  Who is at fault if I am jaywalking but get hit by a car that is speeding?
  - pdonis 6y ago
    In a situation like that, where there is a presumption of fault on both sides, fault would probably end up being split 50-50. Which in practice usually means each party ends up paying their own costs. A large disparity in costs (as would probably be the case in the example you give) might change that, but it would probably end up having to be decided in court. (Note that what I am describing would be the case under current law wherever jaywalking is illegal, not just under the hypothetical law I described.)

627467 6y ago

"the auto industry made it a crime", I mean, we hear lots of allegations that USA is actually ruled by corporations but was this crime not established as such by elected officials in an elected institution? Jaywalking is a ridiculous "crime", no doubt. But let's not go blame some abstract group (auto industry) for democratic society's failure.

mulmen 6y ago
Well the crime was democratically instituted in a world where the "abstract group" literally bought up all the public transit they could and then shut it down to create more drivers. Who then vote.
klyrs 6y ago
Only, the history of this is well documented. The auto industry consists of auto manufacturers, dealerships, and their lobbyists. Here's a couple of articles that are more specific: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797 And, yes. Politicians are complicit in this too.
njharman 6y ago
Let’s not blame abstract group/process “democratic society” when it’s clear that a concrete commercial organization, the auto industry, had profit motive to advertise and lobby for favorable PR and legislation.

underseacables 6y ago

It’s very interesting to visit compact cities like San Francisco, DC, and NYY, and see how much people jaywalk without a worry. Having walked across the street outside of a crosswalk an uncountable number of times, I cannot recall ever being stopped or being alone. Seems people can adequately decide the risk. It would be better to put the onerous on safety back on to vehicles, but this new law could be used to justify blocking traffic.

momokoko 6y ago
This is because, at least in California and New York, jaywalking is not a crime. It is a civil infraction. This means there is no criminal record or court/jail time. It’s a ticket just like a parking or speeding ticket. I find it hard to believe people believe we should be allowed to just hang out in the street. It’s there for general safety of everyone. Could we adjust the rule to account for situations where no cars are around? Sure. But obviously we can’t have a rule where people are allowed to just cross busy city streets at will anywhere. It would be terrible for overall mobility in the city as well as dangerous. These articles are just typical internet extremism and conspiracy theories about “Big Something”. It’s a non issue most places.
- ck425 6y ago
  > But obviously we can’t have a rule where people are allowed to just cross busy city streets at will anywhere. It would be terrible for overall mobility in the city as well as dangerous. That's how many many countries operate and it's actually relatively safe.
nomel 6y ago
> San Francisco, DC, and NYY, and see how much people jaywalk without a worry. I'm only familiar with San Fransisco, but the speed difference between a car in San Fransisco and a human is often pretty slight. Bicycles are usually the highest speed object.
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
Having lived in several major cities I think that most traffic (pedestrian, car and bike) behaves reasonably and predictably. Online discussion is dominated by people who are only ever in one of the above groups and wants the law to completely and totally favor them at the expense of the others. I don't think this jaywalking thing is a big deal or that much changes with/without a law.

CalRobert 6y ago

Criminalizing jaywalking wasn't about making it illegal to walk across the street. It was about making it legal to kill people doing so with your car. If you want to kill someone in the US it's de facto legal to do so with your car. Just be sober and say you didn't see them.

nomel 6y ago
As someone that nearly hit someone that walked out from behind a bush, with a chemically fueled disregard for the world, I don't think the rules are so bad. As unpopular as the opinion appears to be here, I don't like the idea of having to dodge humans randomly entering the road. Should we also take down the signals and barriers that prevent cars from crossing train tracks, since they have the similar goal of preventing a high speed object, with orders of magnitude more weight, from colliding with something relatively squishy? edit: No need to immediately downvote. I would enjoy some discussion.
- detaro 6y ago
  > with a chemically fueled disregard for the world, a law against it doesn't stop that kind of person. And the rest of the world does pretty much fine without strict jaywalking laws, which doesn't mean that there are no laws regulating how pedestrians behave when interacting with street traffic, just that crossing a street safely isn't be default illegal. (and most people have the self-preservation sense to figure that out). It's also easy to create situations where not crossing a street at all is extremely impractical, and flat-out banning it then is not a good idea.
- thex10 6y ago
  > I don't like the idea of having to dodge humans randomly entering the road Attitudes like that are why cars are the number one killer of small children in the USA. I think the idea is that car drivers should be able to see a human and adequately respond to avoid deadly collision (this usually means driving slowly and with more caution in areas where there are humans. this also can mean driving a lighter/smaller vehicle but that seems harder to do nowadays with cars getting beefier over time). Trains, after operators see an obstruction on the tracks, literally cannot respond in time.

sizt 6y ago

You can't buy a tank. But a 16 year old with a Chevy Malibu? Nooo problem. American's are addicted to car culture.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Lots of vitriol and stories. The bottom line is, pedestrians and cars don't belong on the same piece of road. The difference in speeds is too great to be safe.

carapace 6y ago
FWIW I think a sane (ground) transportation system would have at least three or even four inter-connected subsystems: 1. Pedestrians 2. Bikes 3a. Cars 3b. Buses 3c. Trucks (shipping) 4. Trains (And we're starting to get motorized bikes and scooters which might be their own category, at least by speed/power/safety measures.)
throwaway0a5e 6y ago
They figured all this "mixed traffic safety" stuff out during the industrial revolution (the first time people frequently shared the workplace with big fast rolling things that could kill them). The only reason we're still arguing about the details is because everyone wants their pet favorite type of traffic to be favored by law.

ck425 6y ago

Jaywalking is such ridiculous 'crime'. It's not a thing here in the UK and when an American friend first explained it at uni I thought they were winding me up. It's no wonder American cities are so unwalkable and that America has an obesity crisis

DC-3 6y ago
In fairness we also have an obesity crisis.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

Just want to point out how special interests can actually pretty insidiously change your viewpoint by making you think "that's the way things have always been". It was relatively recently that I discovered that jaywalking, as a crime, was a distinctly American phenomenon, when in an HN discussion someone mentioned that British folk think the crime of jaywalking is insane (in the UK you can cross pretty much wherever you want as long as you're not impeding traffic). My initial reaction was "Wait, that's nuts, of course jaywalking should not be allowed." I didn't even realize how the "default" of what I was used to in the US was basically just constructed by the auto industry for their benefit. Glad this is coming to light and hope more places get rid of jaywalking.

ck425 6y ago
When an American friend explained it to me at uni I honestly thought they were trying to trick. It's just such an absurd concept, like how does anyone walk anywhere? Then I realised they don't.
- garmaine 6y ago
  I've been to business hotels in the USA in my travels that literally don't have pedestrian access. There's a road without a pedestrian sidewalk up to the front of the hotel, and that's it. You CANNOT get in or out without a car. It is crazy.
  - iso947 6y ago
    Sounds like crowne plaza in Birmingham (UK), a stones throw from new street station. Birmingham is very walkable.
- geggam 6y ago
  Read many posts and what many folks are missing is the amount of space the US has... it takes more than 1 day of driving to get across Texas alone. Where I live there arent even roads being improved in many areas. You just drive across the dirt None of the countries folks are comparing have close to the amount of space to cover. Yes bigger metro areas are dense enough to have public transit... problem is most folks dont live in that area and commute in. Example ...areas like the SF bay area has folks traveling 2 hrs 1 way on train or car to get to the office

carapace 6y ago

I rarely recommend videos but this one in re: Jaywalking is funny and informative: "The Real Reason Jaywalking Is A Crime (Adam Ruins Everything)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM I was telling a coworker about this once and he didn't believe me, but it was basically a deliberate and successful attempt at mass social engineering through domestic propaganda. We went from vilifying reckless drivers as "speed demons" to vilifying pedestrians as "jays" (yokels or hicks.)

hosteur 6y ago

> This site not available in your country

tomxor 6y ago
Yup, this is not a website.

frickenhamster 6y ago

Fucking stupid. I used to live in a college town where no one obeyed traffic laws. I can't tell you how many car on car, car in bike, car on people accidents were caused by dumbasses walking into open traffic.

standardUser 6y ago
If bike and pedestrian traffic is that dense, they should lower speed limits and install speed bumps.
- frickenhamster 6y ago
  There are. Pedestrians don't care and will literately walk into open traffic. I've seen the same thing in every major city.
  - thex10 6y ago
    Were the drivers impaired? Why couldn't they see the people, or drive slowly and carefully enough to not kill?
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  It's not the density, it's the predictability. Predictably traffic is safe traffic. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about pedestrians, cars or bikes, the ability to accurately anticipate other parties moves is what makes for safety. College campuses suck so bad for safety because you have people from tons of different regions with different etiquette and standards, in a new environment and nobody can predict what anybody else is about to do. Add in the drunks and it's amazing they're as safe as they are.
iso947 6y ago
The common problem seems to be the car

u801e 6y ago

Another related law is the requirement for cyclists to keep as far right as practicable regardless of whether or not there are marked lanes for traffic [1]. Most states have a law that requires vehicles moving at less than the normal speed of traffic to use the right most lane that serves their destination. But the law that specifically applies to cyclists states that they have to keep as far right as practicable within the right most lane itself (with some exceptions). For instance, here's the law [2] in New York: >> Upon all roadways, any bicycle or in-line skate shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic They state the reason is to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic. They don't mention anything about cyclist safety. [1] https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyclists/ https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyc... [2] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1234 https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1234

AhmedHassan2027 6y ago

Yes! "AHA" (Avoid Hasty Abstractions) is the remedy to too much "DRY".

bravura 6y ago

Tidbit: Jaywalking is more typically associated with hard-charging city dwellers, but it means "country walking". Specifically, the word "jay" colloquially referred to a country bumpkin. Traffic lights were first installed in cities. People from rural areas were not aware of the traffic light system and it was the country folk, not the city people, who were most originally associated with perpetrating jaywalking. Hence, "country walking". [can't read the article because it's blocked in the EU, not sure if they covered this]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

cementstripes 6y ago

I had the misfortune of talking to a psychopath recently who admitted to intentionally killing a pedestrian. It made me wonder how many traffic deaths are actually homicides. Legally there is zero accountability so it's the perfect crime.

mbar84 6y ago

I remember a work colleague from Canada asking if it was OK that we were walking across a busy street in Frankfurt Germany. I was a bit confused, but said that, Yes it's OK to walk across the street. In retrospect I might have added, you also don't have to ask anybody if it's OK to go to the bathroom. North America is a strange place.