8 ms·

Note that like most laws, Jaywalking laws tend to make more sense when you read them. Here's the law in New York: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2015/va

Note that like most laws, Jaywalking laws tend to make more sense when you read them. Here's the law in New York: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2015/vat/title-7/article-27/1152 https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2015/vat/title-7/artic... 1152. Crossing at other than crosswalks. (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (b) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (c) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic-control devices; and, when authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross only in accordance with the official traffic-control devices pertaining to such crossing movements. So what's criminalized isn't crossing the road - it's crossing without checking. Which seems like a good idea to me. Looking on the other side of the spectrum, Wyoming's law is: (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (b) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (c) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk. (d) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic-control devices. When authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross only in accordance with the official traffic-control devices pertaining to the crossing movements. Which is similar, except for (c), which only matters when you're close to a crosswalk - and almost certainly, on a busy road.

mikrl 3y ago
Canada specific, but… Diagonal crossing is a thing in Quebec City at certain intersections which stop the traffic flow in every direction. Otherwise I only ever do it when I cannot see any cars which is fairly common at night in rural areas.
- whafro 3y ago
  My family calls that sort of intersection “the doublecross”
- cafard 3y ago
  Fifty or sixty years ago in Denver it was called the "Barnes Dance" after the traffic commissioner who instituted it. My recollection is that only downtown intersections had the necessary signals, but then it has been years since I have been back.
- dixie_land 3y ago
  The intersection to Pike Place Market is an all way crossing (to your point we're pretty cloae to Canada :) ): https://maps.app.goo.gl/wG1Eq4E1StVjCSj18?g_st=ic https://maps.app.goo.gl/wG1Eq4E1StVjCSj18?g_st=ic
- rangestransform 3y ago
  They’re typically called scramble crosswalks. The most famous one is Shibuya scramble, but they also have them in LA.
- _jal 3y ago
  There are a few 4-way stops in San Francisco, mostly in the financial district. One at 4th & Folsom. In general, I routinely jaywalk here, traffic permitting. If nobody's coming, I just walk. In over 20 years, I've never heard of anyone getting a jaywalking ticket in SF.
wongarsu 3y ago
The Wyoming law seems to implicitly assume that a) intersections are spaced close to each other and b) each intersection with traffic lights also has pedestrian crossings. I assume b) is simply enforced by some regulation, but a) sounds like it could lead to lots of unintended problems. What if there's miles between two adjacent intersections? A person standing in the middle would have to know if by chance both the intersection to their left and right have a traffic light, and then walk to the closest one if that's the case (or find a marked crosswalk).
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Jaywalking shouldn't ever be a criminal offense. (Intentionally obstructing traffic is a separate issue.) Ticket pedestrians for creating an unsafe environment. It's what we do to drivers when they do the analogous thing.
- pjscott 3y ago
  To clarify: under the laws linked above, jaywalking is categorized not as a crime or misdemeanor but as a traffic infraction, just like breaking the speed limit or failing to signal a turn.
- leetcrew 3y ago
  it doesn't need to be an "offense" at all. in the event of a collision, it's enough to have a strong prejudice towards the person who had the legal right of way.
enragedcacti 3y ago
It's important to note that while many states have the fairly common sense exceptions you mention, they also allow municipalities to implement and enforce more aggressive policies that don't have such exceptions. For instance, even somewhere like New York City where jaywalking is wildly common doesn't have the "shall yield right-of-way" language: (c) Restrictions on crossings. (1) No pedestrian shall enter or cross a roadway at any point where signs, fences, barriers, or other devices are erected to prohibit or restrict such crossing or entry. (2) No pedestrian shall cross any roadway at an intersection except within a cross- walk. (3) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway except at a crosswalk on any block in which traffic control signals are in operation at both intersections bordering the block. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCrules/0-0-0-63586 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYC...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
kasey_junk 3y ago
Jaywalking laws, independent of how they are implemented only make sense if you start from a prior that the roads are specifically for vehicular use snd it’s pedestrians that are making exceptional use of them. The article is pointing out that belief was a specific policy choice driven at least in part by automakers.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago
  It wasn't just automakers, it was also the car owners. The first cars were owned by the 0.01%, and those sorts of people don't like being held responsible for mowing down smelly, dirty plebians. So, they paid for cartoonists to draw cartoons that made pedestrians look like careless idiots, got their newspaper-owning friends to write editorials, the car companies joined in, and boom, jaywaying laws.
- mcmoor 3y ago
  Not even motorized vehicles could cross the road either, mind you. I'd argue that in artery roads, there are much more people that use the road through it rather than crossing it. In those roads, by democracy, ones crossing it should give way.
digital-cygnet 3y ago
I think you've misunderstood the law you've quoted. It's not about "crossing without checking", it's about the pedestrian "yield[ing] the right of way to all vehicles". It's hard to imagine from a modern perspective, but until laws like this were passed roads were not, as today, universally perceived as places for cars to drive. In cities in much of the developing world the pre-jaywalking regime remains: road users with cars, carts, bikes, trucks, or on foot instead are in a delicate and complex (and often dangerous) dance of theory-of-mind and courtesy (or a game of chicken, depending). The "right-of-way" dominated way of thinking about roads is hard to argue with when you look at most roadways in the developed world (cars zooming around on multiple lanes with few pedestrians in sight). But the idea that every pedestrian must yield right of way to every car is much more questionable in dense cities like NYC, on small, residential streets, where one car trying to go from point A to point C is effectively given total preference over all the people trying to live their lives (and cross the street) in B.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > where one car trying to go from point A to point C is effectively given total preference over all the people trying to live their lives (and cross the street) in B. That's a very simplistic view - it was never questionable and no one was "given preference". It was simply a practical decision in order to allow cars to use the road. The car took a few seconds to stop from even a pedestrians walking speed. The pedestrian takes a few hundred milliseconds to stop from a walking speed. Giving the pedestrian the right of way would simply result in a lot of dead pedestrians. It's a no-brainer that the party to yield should be the one who can yield. The physics didn't allow your preference, and that turned out to be an incredibly good thing as the automobile was one of the biggest drivers of trade and industry the world over. We all benefited, yourself included, from having those early laws on the books.
  - munk-a 3y ago
    > It's a no-brainer that the party to yield should be the one who can yield. Alternative no-brainer - the new entrant to street traffic that doesn't have the handling or control to safely co-habitate the street with existing users shouldn't be allowed onto streets. They should instead be restricted to specific and limited long distance routes that actually take advantage of their ability to travel many miles an hour on an artificial fuel source - with an allowance within streets to allow emergency vehicles of course. In short, walk or take a tram to your parked car if you need to drive it to the next town.
freedrock87 3y ago
Not sure where the law says "crossing without checking" is illegal. It clearly states that crossing outside certain defined areas areas is illegal. That alone is massive issue since crossing area are far and few in between especially if you are trying to cross midblock in NYC. So much for "making more sense when you read them"
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
First thing I taught my children about roads was to always give right of way to any vehicle. Especially at marked crosswalks and regardless of traffic lights. Still, one of them got hit at the pedestrian crossing recently (she is 26 now, needs refreshment lessons it seems).
globular-toast 3y ago
As a matter of principle, pedestrians should not have to yield to vehicles at all. Obviously they should, but the law shouldn't tell them to.

mikrl 3y ago

Canada specific, but… Diagonal crossing is a thing in Quebec City at certain intersections which stop the traffic flow in every direction. Otherwise I only ever do it when I cannot see any cars which is fairly common at night in rural areas.

whafro 3y ago
My family calls that sort of intersection “the doublecross”
cafard 3y ago
Fifty or sixty years ago in Denver it was called the "Barnes Dance" after the traffic commissioner who instituted it. My recollection is that only downtown intersections had the necessary signals, but then it has been years since I have been back.
dixie_land 3y ago
The intersection to Pike Place Market is an all way crossing (to your point we're pretty cloae to Canada :) ): https://maps.app.goo.gl/wG1Eq4E1StVjCSj18?g_st=ic https://maps.app.goo.gl/wG1Eq4E1StVjCSj18?g_st=ic
rangestransform 3y ago
They’re typically called scramble crosswalks. The most famous one is Shibuya scramble, but they also have them in LA.
_jal 3y ago
There are a few 4-way stops in San Francisco, mostly in the financial district. One at 4th & Folsom. In general, I routinely jaywalk here, traffic permitting. If nobody's coming, I just walk. In over 20 years, I've never heard of anyone getting a jaywalking ticket in SF.

wongarsu 3y ago

The Wyoming law seems to implicitly assume that a) intersections are spaced close to each other and b) each intersection with traffic lights also has pedestrian crossings. I assume b) is simply enforced by some regulation, but a) sounds like it could lead to lots of unintended problems. What if there's miles between two adjacent intersections? A person standing in the middle would have to know if by chance both the intersection to their left and right have a traffic light, and then walk to the closest one if that's the case (or find a marked crosswalk).

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Jaywalking shouldn't ever be a criminal offense. (Intentionally obstructing traffic is a separate issue.) Ticket pedestrians for creating an unsafe environment. It's what we do to drivers when they do the analogous thing.

pjscott 3y ago
To clarify: under the laws linked above, jaywalking is categorized not as a crime or misdemeanor but as a traffic infraction, just like breaking the speed limit or failing to signal a turn.
leetcrew 3y ago
it doesn't need to be an "offense" at all. in the event of a collision, it's enough to have a strong prejudice towards the person who had the legal right of way.

enragedcacti 3y ago

It's important to note that while many states have the fairly common sense exceptions you mention, they also allow municipalities to implement and enforce more aggressive policies that don't have such exceptions. For instance, even somewhere like New York City where jaywalking is wildly common doesn't have the "shall yield right-of-way" language: (c) Restrictions on crossings. (1) No pedestrian shall enter or cross a roadway at any point where signs, fences, barriers, or other devices are erected to prohibit or restrict such crossing or entry. (2) No pedestrian shall cross any roadway at an intersection except within a cross- walk. (3) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway except at a crosswalk on any block in which traffic control signals are in operation at both intersections bordering the block. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYCrules/0-0-0-63586 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYC...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

kasey_junk 3y ago

Jaywalking laws, independent of how they are implemented only make sense if you start from a prior that the roads are specifically for vehicular use snd it’s pedestrians that are making exceptional use of them. The article is pointing out that belief was a specific policy choice driven at least in part by automakers.

KennyBlanken 3y ago
It wasn't just automakers, it was also the car owners. The first cars were owned by the 0.01%, and those sorts of people don't like being held responsible for mowing down smelly, dirty plebians. So, they paid for cartoonists to draw cartoons that made pedestrians look like careless idiots, got their newspaper-owning friends to write editorials, the car companies joined in, and boom, jaywaying laws.
mcmoor 3y ago
Not even motorized vehicles could cross the road either, mind you. I'd argue that in artery roads, there are much more people that use the road through it rather than crossing it. In those roads, by democracy, ones crossing it should give way.

digital-cygnet 3y ago

I think you've misunderstood the law you've quoted. It's not about "crossing without checking", it's about the pedestrian "yield[ing] the right of way to all vehicles". It's hard to imagine from a modern perspective, but until laws like this were passed roads were not, as today, universally perceived as places for cars to drive. In cities in much of the developing world the pre-jaywalking regime remains: road users with cars, carts, bikes, trucks, or on foot instead are in a delicate and complex (and often dangerous) dance of theory-of-mind and courtesy (or a game of chicken, depending). The "right-of-way" dominated way of thinking about roads is hard to argue with when you look at most roadways in the developed world (cars zooming around on multiple lanes with few pedestrians in sight). But the idea that every pedestrian must yield right of way to every car is much more questionable in dense cities like NYC, on small, residential streets, where one car trying to go from point A to point C is effectively given total preference over all the people trying to live their lives (and cross the street) in B.

lelanthran 3y ago
> where one car trying to go from point A to point C is effectively given total preference over all the people trying to live their lives (and cross the street) in B. That's a very simplistic view - it was never questionable and no one was "given preference". It was simply a practical decision in order to allow cars to use the road. The car took a few seconds to stop from even a pedestrians walking speed. The pedestrian takes a few hundred milliseconds to stop from a walking speed. Giving the pedestrian the right of way would simply result in a lot of dead pedestrians. It's a no-brainer that the party to yield should be the one who can yield. The physics didn't allow your preference, and that turned out to be an incredibly good thing as the automobile was one of the biggest drivers of trade and industry the world over. We all benefited, yourself included, from having those early laws on the books.
- munk-a 3y ago
  > It's a no-brainer that the party to yield should be the one who can yield. Alternative no-brainer - the new entrant to street traffic that doesn't have the handling or control to safely co-habitate the street with existing users shouldn't be allowed onto streets. They should instead be restricted to specific and limited long distance routes that actually take advantage of their ability to travel many miles an hour on an artificial fuel source - with an allowance within streets to allow emergency vehicles of course. In short, walk or take a tram to your parked car if you need to drive it to the next town.

freedrock87 3y ago

Not sure where the law says "crossing without checking" is illegal. It clearly states that crossing outside certain defined areas areas is illegal. That alone is massive issue since crossing area are far and few in between especially if you are trying to cross midblock in NYC. So much for "making more sense when you read them"

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago

First thing I taught my children about roads was to always give right of way to any vehicle. Especially at marked crosswalks and regardless of traffic lights. Still, one of them got hit at the pedestrian crossing recently (she is 26 now, needs refreshment lessons it seems).

globular-toast 3y ago

As a matter of principle, pedestrians should not have to yield to vehicles at all. Obviously they should, but the law shouldn't tell them to.