4 ms·

yep, it's like that in the UK as well. No such concept as jaywalking at all, you can cross right next to a marked crossing when its red if you must. Works on so

yep, it's like that in the UK as well. No such concept as jaywalking at all, you can cross right next to a marked crossing when its red if you must. Works on social trust and works well

TylerE 4y ago
Jaywalking always seemed like such a weird “crime” to me. I’m surprised I don’t hear about it being abused more.
- ehnto 4y ago
  You are right to feel that way, and I think it helps to picture what life was like when the term showed up. These days we take it as almost an immutable fact that cars are on roads, and people are wherever else they can fit. But back then (1910s) streets in city centers were still commonly unsealed dirt roads. While cars were starting to get popular, they still moved at walking pace, and people using roads were still a mix of adults and kids just walking about, bikes, horse drawn buggies or carts. Looking back at photographs from the time you notice that the roads are just full of foot traffic, they weren't crossing the road, the road was how they got around. But cars were getting faster and more dangerous, and it was no longer compatible to have mixed traffic. Rather than ban cars from cities, we convinced people that actually, it was the car's road afterall and you shouldn't have been there! During that time the term jay walking came about, and it was used to paint the pedestrians as the one's getting in the way of the automobile driver, rather than it being the automobile that was out of place. If we use a very cynical lens, and I think we should, it was a essentially a marketing campaign from automobile makers.
- BoxOfRain 4y ago
  Yeah as someone from the UK the idea of crossing the road being a crime is mind-blowing, getting around would be intolerable as a pedestrian sticking to crossings.
- skissane 4y ago
  The term "jaywalking" itself is of US origin. Most of the rest of the English-speaking world doesn't have any offence by that name. While they do tend to have certain traffic regulations prohibiting pedestrians from crossing a road in an unsafe manner, those regulations are generally narrower in scope than many "jaywalking" laws in the US are.
andrewaylett 4y ago
Indeed, as a pedestrian I have just as much right to be in the road (either crossing, or just walking along it) as I would have were I to hop on a bicycle, and more rights than if I was driving a car[1]. Motorways are the exception, where you're not allowed on or beside the road unless you're in a suitable powered vehicle or there's some kind of emergency. There are various markings that suggest that you probably shouldn't cross, but they aren't enforceable. Cars also have priority in many cases, but priority isn't an excuse for crashing into someone. [1]: My right to drive a car is limited: I need a license, insurance, and permission from the owner. If I'm driving or riding a bicycle, I need to obey signage -- no jumping red lights, no going the wrong way down one way roads. If I'm walking, I'm perfectly at liberty to walk through a red light if I want to.
iggldiggl 4y ago
On the other hand until very recently, the rules for turning vehicles were less in favour of pedestrians in the UK – drivers were only required to give way for pedestrians that had already started crossing (whereas in Germany the corresponding rule also includes pedestrians that are only *about to cross), and every time I was on holiday in the UK, I found the difference to be indeed noticeable, with drivers executing turns noticeable more "aggressive". Relatively recently, that rule was changed in the UK, though how fast that affects actual driving behaviour remains to be seen. Meanwhile in Germany though crossing against as a pedestrian still remains illegal – the only mitigating circumstance is that unlike for vehicular infractions, the fine for pedestrians hasn't been increased and for now remains a nominal 5 € (10 € with endangerment).
- iggldiggl 4y ago
  Edit: Actually and interestingly the fine is 5 € even in combination with endangerment – 10 € only applies if you're also causing property damage.

yep, it's like that in the UK as well. No such concept as jaywalking at all, you can cross right next to a marked crossing when its red if you must. Works on social trust and works well

TylerE 4y ago

Jaywalking always seemed like such a weird “crime” to me. I’m surprised I don’t hear about it being abused more.

ehnto 4y ago
You are right to feel that way, and I think it helps to picture what life was like when the term showed up. These days we take it as almost an immutable fact that cars are on roads, and people are wherever else they can fit. But back then (1910s) streets in city centers were still commonly unsealed dirt roads. While cars were starting to get popular, they still moved at walking pace, and people using roads were still a mix of adults and kids just walking about, bikes, horse drawn buggies or carts. Looking back at photographs from the time you notice that the roads are just full of foot traffic, they weren't crossing the road, the road was how they got around. But cars were getting faster and more dangerous, and it was no longer compatible to have mixed traffic. Rather than ban cars from cities, we convinced people that actually, it was the car's road afterall and you shouldn't have been there! During that time the term jay walking came about, and it was used to paint the pedestrians as the one's getting in the way of the automobile driver, rather than it being the automobile that was out of place. If we use a very cynical lens, and I think we should, it was a essentially a marketing campaign from automobile makers.
BoxOfRain 4y ago
Yeah as someone from the UK the idea of crossing the road being a crime is mind-blowing, getting around would be intolerable as a pedestrian sticking to crossings.
skissane 4y ago
The term "jaywalking" itself is of US origin. Most of the rest of the English-speaking world doesn't have any offence by that name. While they do tend to have certain traffic regulations prohibiting pedestrians from crossing a road in an unsafe manner, those regulations are generally narrower in scope than many "jaywalking" laws in the US are.

andrewaylett 4y ago

Indeed, as a pedestrian I have just as much right to be in the road (either crossing, or just walking along it) as I would have were I to hop on a bicycle, and more rights than if I was driving a car[1]. Motorways are the exception, where you're not allowed on or beside the road unless you're in a suitable powered vehicle or there's some kind of emergency. There are various markings that suggest that you probably shouldn't cross, but they aren't enforceable. Cars also have priority in many cases, but priority isn't an excuse for crashing into someone. [1]: My right to drive a car is limited: I need a license, insurance, and permission from the owner. If I'm driving or riding a bicycle, I need to obey signage -- no jumping red lights, no going the wrong way down one way roads. If I'm walking, I'm perfectly at liberty to walk through a red light if I want to.

iggldiggl 4y ago

On the other hand until very recently, the rules for turning vehicles were less in favour of pedestrians in the UK – drivers were only required to give way for pedestrians that had already started crossing (whereas in Germany the corresponding rule also includes pedestrians that are only *about to cross), and every time I was on holiday in the UK, I found the difference to be indeed noticeable, with drivers executing turns noticeable more "aggressive". Relatively recently, that rule was changed in the UK, though how fast that affects actual driving behaviour remains to be seen. Meanwhile in Germany though crossing against as a pedestrian still remains illegal – the only mitigating circumstance is that unlike for vehicular infractions, the fine for pedestrians hasn't been increased and for now remains a nominal 5 € (10 € with endangerment).

iggldiggl 4y ago
Edit: Actually and interestingly the fine is 5 € even in combination with endangerment – 10 € only applies if you're also causing property damage.