10 ms·

Just the concept of “jaywalking” as a punishable offense is revolting to me.

benrbray 5y ago
The term "jaywalking" is intentional slander of pedestrians popularized by car manufacturing companies who were hell-bent on subjugating American cities to the automobile. [1] https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... [3] (Not Just Bikes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0
xf1cf 5y ago
Ignoring the ford conspiracies how exactly should jaywalking be treated then? It's both a danger to the drivers and the people. We can't get rid of cars and streets. That cat is over a hundred years outside of the bag. It's moved on, had it's own family, and died. Jaywalking as a punishable offense makes sense to me at least. The level of punishment is often excessive certainly. $250 fine for stepping onto the street is far too much for a first offense (but perhaps for a habitual jaywalker it makes sense). Hell, I'm guilty of doing it a lot in my exurb area. However, when I do it it's because there's 2 miles between posted crosswalks and I make sure I can cross safely before trying. There aren't enough crosswalks - certainly. Jaywalking laws create important predictability. I can assume that the average civilian is deterred by jaywalking law enough to not randomly step out onto the street at will. This means I can anticipate them only at crosswalks and intersections. You're already busy dodging drivers distracted with doing anything but driving (makeup, listening to podcasts, eating, reading a book, etc). If we didn't have these laws the risk to driving would be much higher. Many people think humans stand no chance against cars, but one errant jaywalker going through a car window can kill everyone in the vehicle given sufficient enough velocity. It's important to remember a 45 mph impact on a ~125-200 pound human carries with it tremendous momentum. Assuming they don't go through the car window, that same flying body can do lethal damage to law abiding people walking on the sidewalks. The UK doesn't have jaywalking laws. I understand that. But the UK is far more "walkable". The US is by-and-large not. Especially as you get into "normal" towns and not major metros like LA and NYC. I would be willing to agree jaywalking laws need to be done away with if the US was more walkable.
- cloverich 5y ago
  Alternatively we could amend jaywalking to only be an offense if the act directly impedes drivers. That is, always legal to cross when safe. It more reflects the spirit of the law, eliminates bad (cop) behavior, and still allows fining bad pedestrian behavior. It’s how cars are regulated after all — you can turn through a cross walk with it’s walk sign on as long as there’s no pedestrians. So maybe right if way yielding lawns would work equally well for pedestrians and cars.
  - Taniwha 5y ago
    Why not have drivers stop for pedestrians? In many US states pedestrians have right of way at the end of each block, why not in the middle too? Remember all drivers are also pedestrians
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- gnopgnip 5y ago
  CA has the right approach here. Jaywalking is defined as crossing a street with two light controlled intersections outside of the crosswalk, or when it is not your turn. You can legally enter the crosswalk when the light is flashing if you make it across in time. And for streets without intersections controlled by lights jaywalking just doesn't apply. People manage to not walk across highways or other dangerous areas for reasons other than a jaywalking ticket.
tablespoon 5y ago
> Just the concept of “jaywalking” as a punishable offense is revolting to me. It's a required compromise to allow pedestrians and high-speed automobile traffic to coexist. This unfairly-dead comment has a good discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27561530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27561530 Get rid of it, and you'll either have more pedestrians getting run over (e.g. some distracted guy on his cell phone accidentially rushing out in front of some car, getting killed in the process and traumatizing some driver) or you'll have to lower speed limits, which would make longer-distance travel more inefficient and inconvenient.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  Just a note for those unfamiliar with the concept of dead posts: To read that post you need to enable "showdead" or something with a similar name in your profile page.
- lozenge 5y ago
  I always thought it was my desire to live that keeps me from walking into traffic despite any "distractions", but now I learn from you it was the threat of a $250 fine all along.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > I always thought it was my desire to live that keeps me from walking into traffic despite any "distractions", but now I learn from you it was the threat of a $250 fine all along. Actually, I don't think it's so much the fine itself but the sense that not crossing at a crosswalk is "wrong." The the laws against the behavior (and the penalties necessary for such a law) are there mainly to create that understanding. Of course self-preservation is also a factor, but I'd wager the behavior is more effectively inhibited when it's not the only factor.
    - michaelmrose 5y ago
      In New York city in recent years it was found that most jay walking tickets were handed out to minorities. Either white people are more intrinsically motivated or jay walking laws aren't the primary or even a substantial factor in pedestrian accidents. Do you have a reason beyond your gut to believe jaywalking penalties work?
antognini 5y ago
There is a bill (AB 1238) in the California Legislature that will legalize jaywalking: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1238 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml... It passed the Assembly and is going to the State Senate now.
- lupire 5y ago
  Abolish, not legalize. "Jaywalking" is a made up crime invented by car companies to project jaydrivers.
marcus_holmes 5y ago
I find the handing over of personal responsibility for my safety to be alarming. If I'm about to cross the road, I am perfectly capable of deciding when it's safe or not. If the light is red but there's no traffic, it's safe to cross. If I'm standing at a crossing and the light is green, meaning that I can walk, but there's a car out of control heading down the road (or an ambulance with its sirens on, etc) then it's not safe to cross, regardless of the green light. I'm living in Germany at the moment, and you definitely get angry looks and comments for crossing when the light is red (especially if there are children around - because teaching kids to think for themselves and take personal responsibility for their safety is bad?). I find it all very weird.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  Regarding the angry looks with kids around, they aren’t able to judge the speed, distance or even direction (of sound) of an approaching car nearly as well as us before the age of 8 or 10. So it’s prudent to instil in them a respect for the rules. Then when they’re teenagers they’ll automatically rebel and learn about personal responsibility :)
- retromario 5y ago
  The other points are fine, but a 3 or 4-year old does not understand nuance or personal responsibility. I think that in general German society encourages a strong sense of personality responsibility as part of developing healthy children and adults, so kind of a weird thing to pick on. Personally I jaywalk when it's safe and no kids are around.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    Is it jaywalking when you're not stepping in front of a car? When I hear the word, I tend to think of people who take for granted that a car will stop for them and probably even conspicuously turn away from it. I don't think of it as meaning "crossing the street where there is no marked crosswalk" absent traffic, or "crossing the street at an intersection" even if there is no marking and someone who wants to make a turn.
aliasEli 5y ago
It makes some sense that you want to have pedestrians crossing as fast as possible. It's not an offense in my country. It is also not a term you learn in school. So when I was in the US for the first time, and had a policeman shouting "No Jaywalking", I had no idea what he meant.

The term "jaywalking" is intentional slander of pedestrians popularized by car manufacturing companies who were hell-bent on subjugating American cities to the automobile. [1] https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... [3] (Not Just Bikes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0

xf1cf 5y ago

Ignoring the ford conspiracies how exactly should jaywalking be treated then? It's both a danger to the drivers and the people. We can't get rid of cars and streets. That cat is over a hundred years outside of the bag. It's moved on, had it's own family, and died. Jaywalking as a punishable offense makes sense to me at least. The level of punishment is often excessive certainly. $250 fine for stepping onto the street is far too much for a first offense (but perhaps for a habitual jaywalker it makes sense). Hell, I'm guilty of doing it a lot in my exurb area. However, when I do it it's because there's 2 miles between posted crosswalks and I make sure I can cross safely before trying. There aren't enough crosswalks - certainly. Jaywalking laws create important predictability. I can assume that the average civilian is deterred by jaywalking law enough to not randomly step out onto the street at will. This means I can anticipate them only at crosswalks and intersections. You're already busy dodging drivers distracted with doing anything but driving (makeup, listening to podcasts, eating, reading a book, etc). If we didn't have these laws the risk to driving would be much higher. Many people think humans stand no chance against cars, but one errant jaywalker going through a car window can kill everyone in the vehicle given sufficient enough velocity. It's important to remember a 45 mph impact on a ~125-200 pound human carries with it tremendous momentum. Assuming they don't go through the car window, that same flying body can do lethal damage to law abiding people walking on the sidewalks. The UK doesn't have jaywalking laws. I understand that. But the UK is far more "walkable". The US is by-and-large not. Especially as you get into "normal" towns and not major metros like LA and NYC. I would be willing to agree jaywalking laws need to be done away with if the US was more walkable.

cloverich 5y ago
Alternatively we could amend jaywalking to only be an offense if the act directly impedes drivers. That is, always legal to cross when safe. It more reflects the spirit of the law, eliminates bad (cop) behavior, and still allows fining bad pedestrian behavior. It’s how cars are regulated after all — you can turn through a cross walk with it’s walk sign on as long as there’s no pedestrians. So maybe right if way yielding lawns would work equally well for pedestrians and cars.
- Taniwha 5y ago
  Why not have drivers stop for pedestrians? In many US states pedestrians have right of way at the end of each block, why not in the middle too? Remember all drivers are also pedestrians
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
gnopgnip 5y ago
CA has the right approach here. Jaywalking is defined as crossing a street with two light controlled intersections outside of the crosswalk, or when it is not your turn. You can legally enter the crosswalk when the light is flashing if you make it across in time. And for streets without intersections controlled by lights jaywalking just doesn't apply. People manage to not walk across highways or other dangerous areas for reasons other than a jaywalking ticket.

tablespoon 5y ago

> Just the concept of “jaywalking” as a punishable offense is revolting to me. It's a required compromise to allow pedestrians and high-speed automobile traffic to coexist. This unfairly-dead comment has a good discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27561530 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27561530 Get rid of it, and you'll either have more pedestrians getting run over (e.g. some distracted guy on his cell phone accidentially rushing out in front of some car, getting killed in the process and traumatizing some driver) or you'll have to lower speed limits, which would make longer-distance travel more inefficient and inconvenient.

dotancohen 5y ago
Just a note for those unfamiliar with the concept of dead posts: To read that post you need to enable "showdead" or something with a similar name in your profile page.
lozenge 5y ago
I always thought it was my desire to live that keeps me from walking into traffic despite any "distractions", but now I learn from you it was the threat of a $250 fine all along.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > I always thought it was my desire to live that keeps me from walking into traffic despite any "distractions", but now I learn from you it was the threat of a $250 fine all along. Actually, I don't think it's so much the fine itself but the sense that not crossing at a crosswalk is "wrong." The the laws against the behavior (and the penalties necessary for such a law) are there mainly to create that understanding. Of course self-preservation is also a factor, but I'd wager the behavior is more effectively inhibited when it's not the only factor.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    In New York city in recent years it was found that most jay walking tickets were handed out to minorities. Either white people are more intrinsically motivated or jay walking laws aren't the primary or even a substantial factor in pedestrian accidents. Do you have a reason beyond your gut to believe jaywalking penalties work?

antognini 5y ago

There is a bill (AB 1238) in the California Legislature that will legalize jaywalking: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1238 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml... It passed the Assembly and is going to the State Senate now.

lupire 5y ago
Abolish, not legalize. "Jaywalking" is a made up crime invented by car companies to project jaydrivers.

marcus_holmes 5y ago

I find the handing over of personal responsibility for my safety to be alarming. If I'm about to cross the road, I am perfectly capable of deciding when it's safe or not. If the light is red but there's no traffic, it's safe to cross. If I'm standing at a crossing and the light is green, meaning that I can walk, but there's a car out of control heading down the road (or an ambulance with its sirens on, etc) then it's not safe to cross, regardless of the green light. I'm living in Germany at the moment, and you definitely get angry looks and comments for crossing when the light is red (especially if there are children around - because teaching kids to think for themselves and take personal responsibility for their safety is bad?). I find it all very weird.

Swenrekcah 5y ago
Regarding the angry looks with kids around, they aren’t able to judge the speed, distance or even direction (of sound) of an approaching car nearly as well as us before the age of 8 or 10. So it’s prudent to instil in them a respect for the rules. Then when they’re teenagers they’ll automatically rebel and learn about personal responsibility :)
retromario 5y ago
The other points are fine, but a 3 or 4-year old does not understand nuance or personal responsibility. I think that in general German society encourages a strong sense of personality responsibility as part of developing healthy children and adults, so kind of a weird thing to pick on. Personally I jaywalk when it's safe and no kids are around.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  Is it jaywalking when you're not stepping in front of a car? When I hear the word, I tend to think of people who take for granted that a car will stop for them and probably even conspicuously turn away from it. I don't think of it as meaning "crossing the street where there is no marked crosswalk" absent traffic, or "crossing the street at an intersection" even if there is no marking and someone who wants to make a turn.

aliasEli 5y ago

It makes some sense that you want to have pedestrians crossing as fast as possible. It's not an offense in my country. It is also not a term you learn in school. So when I was in the US for the first time, and had a policeman shouting "No Jaywalking", I had no idea what he meant.