7 ms·

Worth pointing out that "jaywalking" is not a universal crime. There are jurisdictions in the USA where it's legal. And it's legal here in Canada. Even the t

by retrac 3y ago

Worth pointing out that "jaywalking" is not a universal crime. There are jurisdictions in the USA where it's legal. And it's legal here in Canada. Even the term stands out -- I'm familiar with "jaywalking" but you only use a term for it if it's illegal. We just call it "crossing the street", or "impeding the flow of traffic", depending how you do it. (It's not exactly a free for all: in Ontario there is still a requirement for pedestrians to use pedestrian crossings, and to follow stop lights, where those are installed.) There are too many cases where it's perfectly safe and reasonable to do that I see any sense in making it illegal. But it is, to be fair, very dangerous in some cases. It's hard to judge how fast a car is moving, sometimes you simply don't see one coming at you. Toronto Police call this a "mid-block crossing", and in the city, they account for a significant % of all pedestrian fatalities, particularly at night, and in busy traffic.

flockonus 3y ago
Definitely not true for Canada as a whole, i know of several people who got jaywalking tickets in BC. Example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/jaywalkers-curb-jumpers-be-warned-police-are-watching-1.4412760 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/jaywalkers-c...
- retrac 3y ago
  Yes, not obeying pedestrian signalling is one of the exceptions. I'd say that's fairly reasonable -- if people cross freely against indicators it messes with the flow of traffic. I've only seen this actually enforced with examples like in the article, outside a busy transit station.
  - seanr88 3y ago
    Even the concept that the flow of traffic is more important than the pedestrian's flow is indicative of the change in attitude. Somehow the car has come to be most important while the pedestrian is a nuisance. Both own and pay for the road but the pedestrian is a second class citizen (obviously some people will moan on about road tax and fuel tax, but these taxes don't come close to paying for the road infrastructure, I doubt they would even pay the rent on the area dedicated to roads in one major city - say NYC).
    - giantg2 3y ago
      "Even the concept that the flow of traffic is more important than the pedestrian's flow" Is it? It seems like in the example, both parties are following a signal. Cars must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Sure, some places have jaywalking laws when not in a crosswalk (in some cases including implied/unmarked crosswalks), and most require impeding traffic as a component. A few places could move towards common sense of adding impeding traffic as a requirement. Nothing I've seen says pedestrians are second class. It's like saying that one should be allowed to run a red light. Everyone can wait their turn.
      - loloquwowndueo 3y ago
        Look at the amount of road space, infrastructure, resources devoted to cars vs. pedestrians. The typical way for pedestrians to cross a busy highway for example is via a bridge - the pedestrian has to put up with going up and down the stairs. Pedestrians typically have to go out of their way to cross streets even at level. Traffic lights have “beg buttons” for pedestrians to use, god forbid they interrupt the flow of first-class car drivers for a minute more than necessary. Pedestrians are totally treated as second-class almost everywhere.
        giantg2 3y ago
        "The typical way for pedestrians to cross a busy highway for example is via a bridge" I'm not sure where you're from, but I have seen very few of these. Usually the ones I've seen are over a very busy road with few to no intersections and a lot of foot traffic. These are beneficial to the flow of both car and foot traffic instead of using long cycle times. “beg buttons” I'm sorry, but that is some extreme spin. What do you think happens at traffic signals? Those signals use sensors to identify when cars come up to them. These sensors don't work for pedestrians lacking large amounts of metal to trip the fields. So yeah, they have a button to tell the machine they want to cross. Usually, the lights change just as fast if not faster than if a car pulls up at a red light. When in a shared space, everyone must wait their turn. If you don't, you end up with people steeping out in front if cars and people running red lights. Taking turns is part of a functioning society.
  - loloquwowndueo 3y ago
    I’ve seen this enforced on an otherwise empty street late at night. Depends on the police officers’ mood. This was in either Vancouver or Toronto.
armchairhacker 3y ago
In Boston (and maybe Massachusetts as a whole), jaywalking is a crime but the fee is literally $1. There was a Boston globe article about this, where some journalist spent his day intentionally and blatantly jaywalking everywhere, including right in front of cops. He didn’t get a single fine.
- ghaff 3y ago
  It does vary. I'm not saying that in cities like Boston and New York, literally no one would ever get a ticket, but people pretty much will take whatever they can get away with for the most part. Historically, West Coast cities were considered to have at least a modicum of enforcement but I expect that's very scattered these days. So, yeah, there's technically a crime of jaywalking but in practice it's mostly limited to whatever you feel you can get away with absent being run over.
- soperj 3y ago
  > including right in front of cops Was the journalist white?
- nix0n 3y ago
  I found the article [0], which has the title "What does a guy have to do to get a jaywalking ticket in this town?" [0] https://www3.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2017/05/24/what-does-guy-have-get-jaywalking-ticket-this-town/9BDQOg1luOChfuwZhhevSK/story.html?arc404=true https://www3.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2017/05/24/what-does-...
scubbo 3y ago
> Worth pointing out that "jaywalking" is not a universal crime. When I first moved from the UK to the USA, I assumed that "jaywalking" was a made-up thing that you warned tourists about, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear. How could crossing the road be _inherently_ illegal, even if done in a safe manner!?
- avalys 3y ago
  There are tons of traffic laws that make things technically illegal even if they're perfectly safe ("no U-turn"), for the purpose of keeping traffic flow orderly and efficient. Not sure why this should be any different or why pedestrians should not be expected to follow traffic laws, or why the law should allow pedestrians to step into traffic whenever and wherever they want.
  - rrradical 3y ago
    U-turns are not perfectly safe. Last week I saw a U-turner almost a hit a biker as they backed up after not being able to complete the turn in one pass. Can they be done safely? Sure. But that's not the same as perfectly safe.
    - interestica 3y ago
      > as they backed up That's no longer a U-turn
      - pixl97 3y ago
        When you start looking at the average size of an American 4 wheeled land yacht you'll understand why U-turns are illegal.
        interestica 3y ago
        Are they illegal across the USA?
    - 3y ago

by retrac 3y ago

flockonus 3y ago

Definitely not true for Canada as a whole, i know of several people who got jaywalking tickets in BC. Example: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/jaywalkers-curb-jumpers-be-warned-police-are-watching-1.4412760 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/jaywalkers-c...

retrac 3y ago
Yes, not obeying pedestrian signalling is one of the exceptions. I'd say that's fairly reasonable -- if people cross freely against indicators it messes with the flow of traffic. I've only seen this actually enforced with examples like in the article, outside a busy transit station.
- seanr88 3y ago
  Even the concept that the flow of traffic is more important than the pedestrian's flow is indicative of the change in attitude. Somehow the car has come to be most important while the pedestrian is a nuisance. Both own and pay for the road but the pedestrian is a second class citizen (obviously some people will moan on about road tax and fuel tax, but these taxes don't come close to paying for the road infrastructure, I doubt they would even pay the rent on the area dedicated to roads in one major city - say NYC).
  - giantg2 3y ago
    "Even the concept that the flow of traffic is more important than the pedestrian's flow" Is it? It seems like in the example, both parties are following a signal. Cars must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. Sure, some places have jaywalking laws when not in a crosswalk (in some cases including implied/unmarked crosswalks), and most require impeding traffic as a component. A few places could move towards common sense of adding impeding traffic as a requirement. Nothing I've seen says pedestrians are second class. It's like saying that one should be allowed to run a red light. Everyone can wait their turn.
    - loloquwowndueo 3y ago
      Look at the amount of road space, infrastructure, resources devoted to cars vs. pedestrians. The typical way for pedestrians to cross a busy highway for example is via a bridge - the pedestrian has to put up with going up and down the stairs. Pedestrians typically have to go out of their way to cross streets even at level. Traffic lights have “beg buttons” for pedestrians to use, god forbid they interrupt the flow of first-class car drivers for a minute more than necessary. Pedestrians are totally treated as second-class almost everywhere.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        "The typical way for pedestrians to cross a busy highway for example is via a bridge" I'm not sure where you're from, but I have seen very few of these. Usually the ones I've seen are over a very busy road with few to no intersections and a lot of foot traffic. These are beneficial to the flow of both car and foot traffic instead of using long cycle times. “beg buttons” I'm sorry, but that is some extreme spin. What do you think happens at traffic signals? Those signals use sensors to identify when cars come up to them. These sensors don't work for pedestrians lacking large amounts of metal to trip the fields. So yeah, they have a button to tell the machine they want to cross. Usually, the lights change just as fast if not faster than if a car pulls up at a red light. When in a shared space, everyone must wait their turn. If you don't, you end up with people steeping out in front if cars and people running red lights. Taking turns is part of a functioning society.
- loloquwowndueo 3y ago
  I’ve seen this enforced on an otherwise empty street late at night. Depends on the police officers’ mood. This was in either Vancouver or Toronto.

armchairhacker 3y ago

In Boston (and maybe Massachusetts as a whole), jaywalking is a crime but the fee is literally $1. There was a Boston globe article about this, where some journalist spent his day intentionally and blatantly jaywalking everywhere, including right in front of cops. He didn’t get a single fine.

ghaff 3y ago
It does vary. I'm not saying that in cities like Boston and New York, literally no one would ever get a ticket, but people pretty much will take whatever they can get away with for the most part. Historically, West Coast cities were considered to have at least a modicum of enforcement but I expect that's very scattered these days. So, yeah, there's technically a crime of jaywalking but in practice it's mostly limited to whatever you feel you can get away with absent being run over.
soperj 3y ago
> including right in front of cops Was the journalist white?
nix0n 3y ago
I found the article [0], which has the title "What does a guy have to do to get a jaywalking ticket in this town?" [0] https://www3.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2017/05/24/what-does-guy-have-get-jaywalking-ticket-this-town/9BDQOg1luOChfuwZhhevSK/story.html?arc404=true https://www3.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/2017/05/24/what-does-...

scubbo 3y ago

> Worth pointing out that "jaywalking" is not a universal crime. When I first moved from the UK to the USA, I assumed that "jaywalking" was a made-up thing that you warned tourists about, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_bear. How could crossing the road be _inherently_ illegal, even if done in a safe manner!?

avalys 3y ago
There are tons of traffic laws that make things technically illegal even if they're perfectly safe ("no U-turn"), for the purpose of keeping traffic flow orderly and efficient. Not sure why this should be any different or why pedestrians should not be expected to follow traffic laws, or why the law should allow pedestrians to step into traffic whenever and wherever they want.
- rrradical 3y ago
  U-turns are not perfectly safe. Last week I saw a U-turner almost a hit a biker as they backed up after not being able to complete the turn in one pass. Can they be done safely? Sure. But that's not the same as perfectly safe.
  - interestica 3y ago
    > as they backed up That's no longer a U-turn
    - pixl97 3y ago
      When you start looking at the average size of an American 4 wheeled land yacht you'll understand why U-turns are illegal.
      - interestica 3y ago
        Are they illegal across the USA?
  - 3y ago