8 ms·

California greenlights jaywalking. It’s a step in the right direction

79 points by eternalban 4y ago

josephcsible 4y ago
Wasn't there just another story from the last day or so about how there are too many pedestrians killed by traffic? Doesn't that make this a big step in the wrong direction?
- blamazon 4y ago
  Before jaywalking, cars were demonized as rampant killers in USA. There were efforts to ban them in cities entirely. Certain interests didn't want that, so 'jaywalking' was invented - suddenly cars were not the invader in the pedestrian's street, it was the other way around--peds were now interlopers unless explicitly instructed by car infrastructure. This led to cars going faster in urban environments, with more infrastructure for cars while pedestrians got smaller and smaller slices of the street to use. This series of events is a huge cause of the current state of high pedestrian deaths by traffic. Legalizing pedestrianism is one move in a larger strategy to unroll the mistakes of the past and reclaim the most valuable parts of our cities for humans once again.
- stephen_g 4y ago
  No, because "jaywalking" laws never really made people safer... There are obviously many problems to solve, but having crossing the street in many areas criminalised doesn't really help with any of them.
- caconym_ 4y ago
  What percentage of pedestrians killed by motor vehicles in any recent time window of your choice were jaywalking when it happened?
nathanaldensr 4y ago
- koyote 4y ago
  Is this an issue in countries where jaywalking was never a thing (like the UK)? Being allowed to cross a road at any point does not imply that you are indemnified for intentionally jumping into traffic.
  - crote 4y ago
    I can't speak for the UK, but in The Netherlands the driver is virtually always considered to be at fault - except extremely rare ones where the driver could not have possibly anticipated and/or avoided it. To give an example, hitting a child who suddenly runs onto the road is the driver's fault, as children are well-known to be unpredictable and do stupid things. But no, insurance fraud like that does not really exist here, probably because there is nothing to gain from it. We don't do multi-million-dollar lawsuits for things like emotional damage, and liability is just a thing between your insurance and theirs.
  - BirdieNZ 4y ago
    In New Zealand we have a government organisation called ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) which provides insurance for accidents and injuries. It prevents you from suing in this case: "ACC is the sole and compulsory provider of accident insurance in New Zealand for all work and non-work related injuries. The corporation administers the ACC Scheme on a no-fault basis, so that anyone, regardless of the way in which they suffered an injury, has coverage under the scheme. Due to the scheme's no-fault basis, people who have suffered personal injury do not have the right to sue an at-fault party, except for exemplary damages."
- thebooktocome 4y ago
  It doesn’t seem likely that a minor misdemeanor jaywalking ticket, very rarely enforced (at least, as far as I have seen), would really budge the needle either way as far as the overall frequency of jaywalking is concerned. So rest assured. Your precious insurance premiums are safe.
noodlesUK 4y ago
I've never understood this attitude to crossing the road. In every European country, you simply cross the road if you can get across to the other side safely. If there is a signal, you can use it to stop the cars. The middle of the road seems like it would be a much safer place to cross than at intersections in many instances as there wouldn't be people turning unexpectedly.
- euos 4y ago
  - noodlesUK 4y ago
    > Have you left US ever? I'm British? If you mean have I left the UK, yes. I've been a lot of different places and what I mean is that the idea that it should be illegal to cross the road even when there are not any cars is a bizarre US thing.
    - georgyo 4y ago
      You should visit Berlin, Vienna, or anywhere in Japan. Though Japanese culture is not likely to tell you directly that you shouldn't cross against the light. You will see the natives wait very patiently at an empty intersection waiting for their turn to walk. You may also want to visit New York or Vietnam a place where people cross between moving traffic. The US and Europe are very large. There is no federal US law about Jay walking and lumping it all together because a few places are strict about it is odd. It's like thinking all drivers in Europe drive on the left side of the road because you only visited London.
      - karaokeyoga 4y ago
        I noticed that in Japan (specifically, Kyoto, where I lived) that people would wait for the light to turn green … but, if I made the first move and crossed on red, most of the other folks waiting would happily follow.
refurb 4y ago
CA doesn’t prosecute major crimes like burglary, shoplifting or drug possession. How many people have gotten ticketed for jaywalking beyond the rare exception? I jaywalk all the time, even in front of cops and nothing happened. This is like legalizing pot in CA. It’s just updating the law to reflect enforcement.
- thethethethe 4y ago
  > CA doesn’t prosecute major crimes like burglary, shoplifting or drug possession. One of those is not like the others...
- dghlsakjg 4y ago
  That's because jaywalking is frequently, if not always, used as a pretext to stop and investigate someone for purposes of harassments or profiling. Do you dress well, and generally look like a law abiding citizen? I'll bet you never get stopped. If you wrapped yourself in blankets and started pushing a shopping cart in an affluent area, you would learn all about laws that you had no idea existed.
  - noptd 4y ago
    >frequently, if not always When you're making sweeping generalizations and arguing in near absolutes, citations are very much needed.
    - dghlsakjg 4y ago
      Check out the statistics farther down this page from the campaign that pushed for the law change. https://www.calbike.org/freedom-to-walk-campaign/ https://www.calbike.org/freedom-to-walk-campaign/ Black people are 4.3x more likely to be stopped and ticketed for jaywalking than the white population as a whole in San Diego, and 3x - 3.7x more likely to be stopped in LA (depending on where). These discrepancies, and use of the jaywalking rules as a targeting mechanism, were one of the very reasons for the change in law that this thread is discussing.
AtlasBarfed 4y ago
What's the impact on liability if you hit a pedestrian under this change? I'm thinking of all the ludicrous dashcam vids from Russia where people weakly fake getting hit by a car.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  Pedestrians only have the right of way when they use a cross walk.
  - lupire 4y ago
    This is not true. It is not legal to mow down a pedestrian as way from a cross walk.
    - charcircuit 4y ago
      It's not legal to kill someone in a car who entered an intersection who didn't have the right of way.
dopeboy 4y ago
We'll look back one day and wonder how this was ever a crime. This is a symbolic move, since it rarely gets enforced. But needed nonetheless. Now let's get municipalities to put those lights that detect when a pedestrian is crossing so that motorists have better visibility. Tons of crossings not connected to the street lights that need this.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  > This is a symbolic move, since it rarely gets enforced. Except if you're in a poor part of town. "Rarely enforced" laws are absolutely evil in my opinion, because it means they are really only enforced when convenient to meet other ends. Take anti-sodomy laws before Lawrence v Texas. They were also "rarely enforced", but were conveniently used to call out gays and lesbians as "criminals" whenever it suited some bigoted politician.
  - otherme123 4y ago
    Related: https://mobile.twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1595456040677556226 https://mobile.twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/15954560406775... In Chechenya there is a traffic light in red 24/7. It's there only to make you guilty when needed.
- mertd 4y ago
  It's not a crime. It is a misdemeanor, as in, it will never land you in jail.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    Misdemeanors are still very much crimes.
- mturmon 4y ago
  I’m afraid jaywalking ordinances do get enforced, even in urban California. The city of Pasadena was known for this, e.g., https://www.pasadenanow.com/main/police-write-138-tickets-during-bike-and-pedestrian-safety-enforcement-campaign-in-pasadena https://www.pasadenanow.com/main/police-write-138-tickets-du... One for Glendale: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLosAngeles/comments/ueu5lc?s=8 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLosAngeles/comments/ueu5lc?s=8 A few in Burbank: https://myburbank.com/burbank-police-target-unsafe-pedestrians/ https://myburbank.com/burbank-police-target-unsafe-pedestria...
_8j50 4y ago
[flagged]
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  - fauntle 4y ago
    People downvote you, but that's just because they're rich enough to avoid it all
  - _8j50 4y ago
    Plenty of open drug use in developed liberal countries. If europe had a nice climate there would be a lot more people there and shitting on the street as well because in their developed sense, public toilets cost money! Being developed isn't about a few rich people getting richer but the quality of life getting better for everyone. If CA was its own country other states wouldn't be able to ship their homeless and troubled folk, yet it still remains pleasant and richest state.
- mertd 4y ago
  Californian (voters') hostility against urbanism overshadows many good things happening here.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    I still would feel safe and like the government isn't out there to make my life hell in CA. People's life get ruined by the state just for the fun of it in many other places, especially anywhere in the south like arkansas, texas, missisipi,etc... the cruelty is just overwhelming. When I first saw the long encampment of homeless people in venice/santa monica (and LA in general) it felt horrible but then I am wondering if those people are better off than poor folks in some other states.
- briga 4y ago
  Have you been to other states? They're really not that different. California just happens to have way more people than most.
trappist 4y ago
Headline might as well end in "and that's a good thing." Why can't they stop editorializing everything?
- CameronNemo 4y ago
  The entire article is purposefully full of puns. I imagine the author was walking on sunshine.
  - potatochup 4y ago
    Puns and an entire superfluous rant on other CA laws
    - lupire 4y ago
      And chock full of a repeated slur for "pedestrian".
- googlryas 4y ago
  Content in the opinion section is almost definitionally editorialized.
anm89 4y ago
Why did this need to be an opinion piece. Is there some danger to hearing about a piece of legislation without being explicitly told how to feel about it? Noticed this with the other WP story on here. "people are spending their time alone, we should reverse that". Sad that people feel the need to consume content that has to instruct them on the interpretation of everything lest they think a wrong thought or spend some time alone without guilt or something.
givemeethekeys 4y ago
I cross the street, intersection or otherwise, assuming that unless eye contact and acknowledgment have occurred, I am invisible. I looked up how liability would be distributed if a jaywalker gets hit by a car and found this: https://www.mcreynoldsllp.com/hit-jaywalker-at-fault/ https://www.mcreynoldsllp.com/hit-jaywalker-at-fault/ Quote: "California follows a comparative negligence scheme. That means that a fact-finder (a judge or jury) will look at the actions of everyone involved in an accident and determine the percentage that each person is at fault. If a plaintiff was 40 percent at fault for the own accident, then their total injury award will be reduced by 40 percent. If a driver hits a jaywalker, it is clear that the pedestrian was at least partially at fault for the accident. That does not, however, mean that the pedestrian was entirely at fault. If the auto driver was speeding, intoxicated, passing on the right, distracted, or otherwise driving negligently, then they may share fault. A judge or jury will weigh the actions of each party and the circumstances of the accident to determine each party’s relative fault and will adjust the potential damage awards accordingly. If you were driving and a jaywalker jumped in front of your car, causing you to hit the pedestrian, swerve, crash your car, and injure yourself, you may have a personal injury claim against the pedestrian. The same analysis described above will ensue: Were you acting negligently? How negligent was the pedestrian? Who really caused the accident? A dedicated California car accident lawyer can evaluate your case and determine whether you, as the driver or the pedestrian, has a valid claim against the other parties involved and whether your potential award is likely to be reduced as a result of the comparative levels of fault."
- tssva 4y ago
  I live in Virginia which the article mistakenly claims to have legalized jaywalking. Jaywalking is still a crime in Virginia but is now only chargeable as a secondary offense. Virginia doesn't have partial liability in most civil cases. If you are partially at fault to any degree, you will not receive any damages. I know someone that was hit by a drunk speeding driver on a motorcycle but received no civil damages because they were jaywalking and therefore deemed partially responsible.
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
Overtonwindow 4y ago
The middle of the road seems like it would NOT be a much safer place to cross than at intersections.
sentientslug 4y ago
Does this piece strike anyone else as cringy? Seems like the author went out of his way to include as many California tropes as possible, to the point that I had to Google him to check if he was born in CA or not (he was not).
- uSoldering 4y ago
  Cringy/pandering, yes. Something to do with turning a news story as boring as 'It is now legal to cross the road.' into a 832 word salad.
josephcsible 4y ago
I don't understand how people who believe we have too many pedestrians killed by cars could also think this is a good thing.
- bitsavers 4y ago
  “Every step that is ‘jay’ is defiance in the face of the automobile machine.” huh? https://unevenearth.org/2022/02/a-jaywalking-manifesto/ https://unevenearth.org/2022/02/a-jaywalking-manifesto/
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
WheelsAtLarge 4y ago
I have to think that the governor weighted the pluses and the minuses before he sign the bill. I'm one that believes that making everything illegal eventually leads to people ignoring the law so this is not a bad thing. Unfortunate we will see a lot of news about people dying because they jaywalked. I hope they start a campaign to make people aware of the dangers of jaywalking before that happens.

79 points by eternalban 4y ago

Wasn't there just another story from the last day or so about how there are too many pedestrians killed by traffic? Doesn't that make this a big step in the wrong direction?

blamazon 4y ago
Before jaywalking, cars were demonized as rampant killers in USA. There were efforts to ban them in cities entirely. Certain interests didn't want that, so 'jaywalking' was invented - suddenly cars were not the invader in the pedestrian's street, it was the other way around--peds were now interlopers unless explicitly instructed by car infrastructure. This led to cars going faster in urban environments, with more infrastructure for cars while pedestrians got smaller and smaller slices of the street to use. This series of events is a huge cause of the current state of high pedestrian deaths by traffic. Legalizing pedestrianism is one move in a larger strategy to unroll the mistakes of the past and reclaim the most valuable parts of our cities for humans once again.
stephen_g 4y ago
No, because "jaywalking" laws never really made people safer... There are obviously many problems to solve, but having crossing the street in many areas criminalised doesn't really help with any of them.
caconym_ 4y ago
What percentage of pedestrians killed by motor vehicles in any recent time window of your choice were jaywalking when it happened?

nathanaldensr 4y ago

koyote 4y ago
Is this an issue in countries where jaywalking was never a thing (like the UK)? Being allowed to cross a road at any point does not imply that you are indemnified for intentionally jumping into traffic.
- crote 4y ago
  I can't speak for the UK, but in The Netherlands the driver is virtually always considered to be at fault - except extremely rare ones where the driver could not have possibly anticipated and/or avoided it. To give an example, hitting a child who suddenly runs onto the road is the driver's fault, as children are well-known to be unpredictable and do stupid things. But no, insurance fraud like that does not really exist here, probably because there is nothing to gain from it. We don't do multi-million-dollar lawsuits for things like emotional damage, and liability is just a thing between your insurance and theirs.
- BirdieNZ 4y ago
  In New Zealand we have a government organisation called ACC (Accident Compensation Corporation) which provides insurance for accidents and injuries. It prevents you from suing in this case: "ACC is the sole and compulsory provider of accident insurance in New Zealand for all work and non-work related injuries. The corporation administers the ACC Scheme on a no-fault basis, so that anyone, regardless of the way in which they suffered an injury, has coverage under the scheme. Due to the scheme's no-fault basis, people who have suffered personal injury do not have the right to sue an at-fault party, except for exemplary damages."
thebooktocome 4y ago
It doesn’t seem likely that a minor misdemeanor jaywalking ticket, very rarely enforced (at least, as far as I have seen), would really budge the needle either way as far as the overall frequency of jaywalking is concerned. So rest assured. Your precious insurance premiums are safe.

noodlesUK 4y ago

I've never understood this attitude to crossing the road. In every European country, you simply cross the road if you can get across to the other side safely. If there is a signal, you can use it to stop the cars. The middle of the road seems like it would be a much safer place to cross than at intersections in many instances as there wouldn't be people turning unexpectedly.

euos 4y ago
- noodlesUK 4y ago
  > Have you left US ever? I'm British? If you mean have I left the UK, yes. I've been a lot of different places and what I mean is that the idea that it should be illegal to cross the road even when there are not any cars is a bizarre US thing.
  - georgyo 4y ago
    You should visit Berlin, Vienna, or anywhere in Japan. Though Japanese culture is not likely to tell you directly that you shouldn't cross against the light. You will see the natives wait very patiently at an empty intersection waiting for their turn to walk. You may also want to visit New York or Vietnam a place where people cross between moving traffic. The US and Europe are very large. There is no federal US law about Jay walking and lumping it all together because a few places are strict about it is odd. It's like thinking all drivers in Europe drive on the left side of the road because you only visited London.
    - karaokeyoga 4y ago
      I noticed that in Japan (specifically, Kyoto, where I lived) that people would wait for the light to turn green … but, if I made the first move and crossed on red, most of the other folks waiting would happily follow.

refurb 4y ago

CA doesn’t prosecute major crimes like burglary, shoplifting or drug possession. How many people have gotten ticketed for jaywalking beyond the rare exception? I jaywalk all the time, even in front of cops and nothing happened. This is like legalizing pot in CA. It’s just updating the law to reflect enforcement.

thethethethe 4y ago
> CA doesn’t prosecute major crimes like burglary, shoplifting or drug possession. One of those is not like the others...
dghlsakjg 4y ago
That's because jaywalking is frequently, if not always, used as a pretext to stop and investigate someone for purposes of harassments or profiling. Do you dress well, and generally look like a law abiding citizen? I'll bet you never get stopped. If you wrapped yourself in blankets and started pushing a shopping cart in an affluent area, you would learn all about laws that you had no idea existed.
- noptd 4y ago
  >frequently, if not always When you're making sweeping generalizations and arguing in near absolutes, citations are very much needed.
  - dghlsakjg 4y ago
    Check out the statistics farther down this page from the campaign that pushed for the law change. https://www.calbike.org/freedom-to-walk-campaign/ https://www.calbike.org/freedom-to-walk-campaign/ Black people are 4.3x more likely to be stopped and ticketed for jaywalking than the white population as a whole in San Diego, and 3x - 3.7x more likely to be stopped in LA (depending on where). These discrepancies, and use of the jaywalking rules as a targeting mechanism, were one of the very reasons for the change in law that this thread is discussing.

AtlasBarfed 4y ago

What's the impact on liability if you hit a pedestrian under this change? I'm thinking of all the ludicrous dashcam vids from Russia where people weakly fake getting hit by a car.

charcircuit 4y ago
Pedestrians only have the right of way when they use a cross walk.
- lupire 4y ago
  This is not true. It is not legal to mow down a pedestrian as way from a cross walk.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    It's not legal to kill someone in a car who entered an intersection who didn't have the right of way.

dopeboy 4y ago

We'll look back one day and wonder how this was ever a crime. This is a symbolic move, since it rarely gets enforced. But needed nonetheless. Now let's get municipalities to put those lights that detect when a pedestrian is crossing so that motorists have better visibility. Tons of crossings not connected to the street lights that need this.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> This is a symbolic move, since it rarely gets enforced. Except if you're in a poor part of town. "Rarely enforced" laws are absolutely evil in my opinion, because it means they are really only enforced when convenient to meet other ends. Take anti-sodomy laws before Lawrence v Texas. They were also "rarely enforced", but were conveniently used to call out gays and lesbians as "criminals" whenever it suited some bigoted politician.
- otherme123 4y ago
  Related: https://mobile.twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1595456040677556226 https://mobile.twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/15954560406775... In Chechenya there is a traffic light in red 24/7. It's there only to make you guilty when needed.
mertd 4y ago
It's not a crime. It is a misdemeanor, as in, it will never land you in jail.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  Misdemeanors are still very much crimes.
mturmon 4y ago
I’m afraid jaywalking ordinances do get enforced, even in urban California. The city of Pasadena was known for this, e.g., https://www.pasadenanow.com/main/police-write-138-tickets-during-bike-and-pedestrian-safety-enforcement-campaign-in-pasadena https://www.pasadenanow.com/main/police-write-138-tickets-du... One for Glendale: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLosAngeles/comments/ueu5lc?s=8 https://www.reddit.com/r/AskLosAngeles/comments/ueu5lc?s=8 A few in Burbank: https://myburbank.com/burbank-police-target-unsafe-pedestrians/ https://myburbank.com/burbank-police-target-unsafe-pedestria...

_8j50 4y ago

[flagged]

imwillofficial 4y ago
- fauntle 4y ago
  People downvote you, but that's just because they're rich enough to avoid it all
- _8j50 4y ago
  Plenty of open drug use in developed liberal countries. If europe had a nice climate there would be a lot more people there and shitting on the street as well because in their developed sense, public toilets cost money! Being developed isn't about a few rich people getting richer but the quality of life getting better for everyone. If CA was its own country other states wouldn't be able to ship their homeless and troubled folk, yet it still remains pleasant and richest state.
mertd 4y ago
Californian (voters') hostility against urbanism overshadows many good things happening here.
- _8j50 4y ago
  I still would feel safe and like the government isn't out there to make my life hell in CA. People's life get ruined by the state just for the fun of it in many other places, especially anywhere in the south like arkansas, texas, missisipi,etc... the cruelty is just overwhelming. When I first saw the long encampment of homeless people in venice/santa monica (and LA in general) it felt horrible but then I am wondering if those people are better off than poor folks in some other states.
briga 4y ago
Have you been to other states? They're really not that different. California just happens to have way more people than most.

trappist 4y ago

Headline might as well end in "and that's a good thing." Why can't they stop editorializing everything?

CameronNemo 4y ago
The entire article is purposefully full of puns. I imagine the author was walking on sunshine.
- potatochup 4y ago
  Puns and an entire superfluous rant on other CA laws
  - lupire 4y ago
    And chock full of a repeated slur for "pedestrian".
googlryas 4y ago
Content in the opinion section is almost definitionally editorialized.

anm89 4y ago

Why did this need to be an opinion piece. Is there some danger to hearing about a piece of legislation without being explicitly told how to feel about it? Noticed this with the other WP story on here. "people are spending their time alone, we should reverse that". Sad that people feel the need to consume content that has to instruct them on the interpretation of everything lest they think a wrong thought or spend some time alone without guilt or something.

givemeethekeys 4y ago

I cross the street, intersection or otherwise, assuming that unless eye contact and acknowledgment have occurred, I am invisible. I looked up how liability would be distributed if a jaywalker gets hit by a car and found this: https://www.mcreynoldsllp.com/hit-jaywalker-at-fault/ https://www.mcreynoldsllp.com/hit-jaywalker-at-fault/ Quote: "California follows a comparative negligence scheme. That means that a fact-finder (a judge or jury) will look at the actions of everyone involved in an accident and determine the percentage that each person is at fault. If a plaintiff was 40 percent at fault for the own accident, then their total injury award will be reduced by 40 percent. If a driver hits a jaywalker, it is clear that the pedestrian was at least partially at fault for the accident. That does not, however, mean that the pedestrian was entirely at fault. If the auto driver was speeding, intoxicated, passing on the right, distracted, or otherwise driving negligently, then they may share fault. A judge or jury will weigh the actions of each party and the circumstances of the accident to determine each party’s relative fault and will adjust the potential damage awards accordingly. If you were driving and a jaywalker jumped in front of your car, causing you to hit the pedestrian, swerve, crash your car, and injure yourself, you may have a personal injury claim against the pedestrian. The same analysis described above will ensue: Were you acting negligently? How negligent was the pedestrian? Who really caused the accident? A dedicated California car accident lawyer can evaluate your case and determine whether you, as the driver or the pedestrian, has a valid claim against the other parties involved and whether your potential award is likely to be reduced as a result of the comparative levels of fault."

tssva 4y ago
I live in Virginia which the article mistakenly claims to have legalized jaywalking. Jaywalking is still a crime in Virginia but is now only chargeable as a secondary offense. Virginia doesn't have partial liability in most civil cases. If you are partially at fault to any degree, you will not receive any damages. I know someone that was hit by a drunk speeding driver on a motorcycle but received no civil damages because they were jaywalking and therefore deemed partially responsible.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago

Overtonwindow 4y ago

The middle of the road seems like it would NOT be a much safer place to cross than at intersections.

sentientslug 4y ago

Does this piece strike anyone else as cringy? Seems like the author went out of his way to include as many California tropes as possible, to the point that I had to Google him to check if he was born in CA or not (he was not).

uSoldering 4y ago
Cringy/pandering, yes. Something to do with turning a news story as boring as 'It is now legal to cross the road.' into a 832 word salad.

josephcsible 4y ago

I don't understand how people who believe we have too many pedestrians killed by cars could also think this is a good thing.

bitsavers 4y ago
“Every step that is ‘jay’ is defiance in the face of the automobile machine.” huh? https://unevenearth.org/2022/02/a-jaywalking-manifesto/ https://unevenearth.org/2022/02/a-jaywalking-manifesto/
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

WheelsAtLarge 4y ago

I have to think that the governor weighted the pluses and the minuses before he sign the bill. I'm one that believes that making everything illegal eventually leads to people ignoring the law so this is not a bad thing. Unfortunate we will see a lot of news about people dying because they jaywalked. I hope they start a campaign to make people aware of the dangers of jaywalking before that happens.