> for the purpose of keeping traffic flow orderly and efficient. Not sure why this should be any difference Because I'm saying that the act of crossing the roa

> for the purpose of keeping traffic flow orderly and efficient. Not sure why this should be any difference Because I'm saying that the act of crossing the road _itself_ should not be illegal - merely the act of crossing it unsafely. By definition, this is not disruptive to traffic flow. > why pedestrians should not be expected to follow traffic laws They should. This is begging the question - I'm saying that the law itself is flawed, not that a law should exist and be flouted. > why the law should allow pedestrians to step into traffic whenever and wherever they want This is a strawman. Pedestrians should be allowed to step into _roads_ (not into traffic) whenever and wherever it is safe to do so.