8 ms·

The Invention of Jaywalking

104 points by aarghh 14y ago

Swizec 14y ago
Over here in Europe, or possibly only Slovenia, we have a similar thing going on. If the driver does something stupid and plows into a pedestrian - that's manslaughter. If an accident happens and they end up on the sidewalk ... well then it's not really anybody's fault. It was an accident. I'm not sure why you would really want to press criminal charges against somebody who, following a difficult situation on the road, ended up unfortunately damaging someone. However, if the person is on a crosswalk. Then it's the driver should be charged at least with manslaughter ... unless they're rear-ended or there's some other circumstance out of their control that made them unable to stop.
- ktizo 14y ago
  If a car ends up on the pavement and kills someone, then there should be at the very least an investigation to see if charges should be pressed. Given that pedestrians stepping into the road seems criminal by default in many US cities, then surely so should be cars driving on the pavement. Or would you be able to get out of a jaywalking ticket by claiming that it was accidental?
  - Swizec 14y ago
    Tickets aren't "criminal". It's just a ticket. And yes, drivers do get ticketed and fined when they drive on the pavement. But a ticket does not criminal charges make.
    - bmelton 14y ago
      Perhaps I'm less on the semantic side of things, but you get tickets for violating the law, or penal code. The definition of criminal is (I'm guessing) 'person who breaks the law'. I suspect that, in light of that, you get tickets for criminal behavior. There are less criminal charges, for sure -- like driving at night without working headlights, but that still violates the law requiring you to maintain a safe and drivable vehicle, and is as such a criminal act.
      - lazerwalker 14y ago
        There is a legal distinction between 'civil' and 'criminal' law. To oversimplify things, 'criminal' laws are ones that reflect some sort of moral code (e.g. laws against murder and manslaughter), and 'civil' laws are ones that are simply rules (e.g. speed limits, jaywalking). Civil cases can't be punished with jail time or anything like that.
        bmelton 14y ago
        I don't know that I'm yet convinced that speeding is a civil offense. Can you give me an example of a civil offense that I would get a ticket for? I have always thought of civil laws as those that corporations need to abide. Perhaps I'm wrong? As for speed limits and jaywalking specifically, you appear to be right that they aren't criminal offenses until a threshold has been crossed (e.g., speeding 15 over the limit). But those seem to be considered 'infractions', and I admittedly don't know where the lines are.
        dripton 14y ago
        In the US we have three kinds of charges: felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. Felonies are major criminal offenses. Misdemeanors are minor criminal offenses. Infractions are oopsies. Most traffic charges are treated as infractions, even when they lead to levels of damage or injury that would ordinarily mean a misdemeanor or felony. Cars are somehow "special." If you want to get away with murder in the US, definitely use a car not a gun. (But don't be drunk. Drunk driving is no longer socially acceptable -- if you're drunk and kill someone with your car, that's serious jail time. If you're just a bad driver and kill someone with your car, that's an oopsie.)
        ghurlman 14y ago
        What state do you live in where vehicular manslaughter isn't a felony charge? Rich and/or well-connected folks notwithstanding...
        14y ago
    - ghurlman 14y ago
      It is indeed a criminal charge. By paying the ticket, you are submitting a guilty plea. A low-level charge, sure (depending on the ticket), but a charge nevertheless.
      - noahc 14y ago
        It sounds to me like all charges are criminal in your mind if they involve a finding of the court. This is not true
        ghurlman 14y ago
        Just the findings that involve charges stemming from the penal code, and involve being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt vs. the civil standard of a preponderance of evidence.
- yxhuvud 14y ago
  If a car have to go up on a sidewalk and kill someone then the driver does not have a good enough control over the car.
- tomp 14y ago
  You should press charges not against the driver of the car who kills/injures a pedestrian (on the sidewalk), but the one that caused the accident - he's the ultimate reason why the person got killed/injured.
- maratd 14y ago
  > I'm not sure why you would really want to press criminal charges against somebody who, following a difficult situation on the road, ended up unfortunately damaging someone. I've been driving in New York City since I was 16. I'm 31 now. I've been in many difficult situations, even a major collision, but I've never found the need to plow into the sidewalk. There are people out there who are cowards. By that, I mean they would rather risk harm to others than to themselves. When you are about to collide with another vehicle on the road, you do not swerve into the sidewalk. No. You take your chances with the collision. People who endanger others for the sake of their own skin are trash and should be prosecuted. You use your driving expertise to stay on the road and if you do not have the skill-set to do that, you shouldn't be driving.
  - ArtB 14y ago
    > You use your driving expertise to stay on the road and if you do not have the skill-set to do that, you shouldn't be driving. Unfortunately, in most many places in North America you cannot function in society without a vehicle thus even if you know you shouldn't be drive the penalty is so great that almost all keep on driving. If there were reasonable alternatives like mass transportation then we could reasonably expect thus unqualified to use them, but in suburbia mass transit does not work. To me this is as rediculous campaigns against drunk driving that don't push for local busses to operate until at least an hour after bars close. tl;dr: one cannot reasonably expect people to behave responsibly without there being reasonable alternatives
    - malandrew 14y ago
      Actually there is a reasonable alternative: Don't live in cities that fail to provide a reasonable alternative. A car is only a reasonable alternative in rural areas and as a mode of inter-city transport.
      - ArtB 14y ago
        I think in Canada that describes only 3 cities, and even then a lot of the tech companies are on the outskirts since the offices are cheaper.
TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
I'd never considered that idea before: Cars are now more important than pedestrians. I've always had the opinion that pedestrians are above the drivers, but then again, I don't live in America. Perhaps things differ there.
- ticks 14y ago
  Yeah, drivers in my country are taught to watch out for vulnerable road users (i.e. pedestrians), moving a vehicle onto a pavement is prohibited except for access reasons.
- idleloops 14y ago
  I actually thought that Jaywalking was a joke - until I visited America. And it was incredibly frustrating for someone from the UK to cross the roads. I really loathed it. In my mind the rule of the road is something like: Pedestrians>Cyclists>Scooters>Motorbikes>Cars I always give large mass vehicles and pedestrian carriers a wide berth. Though a little common sense can go a long way! What's the problem crossing an empty road! Or even speeding on an empty road? It's the nanny state gone mad!
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - meddlepal 14y ago
    As an American it is funny you say that, when I visited France a few years back I spent time in Nice and Paris and it definitely seemed like road vehicles had the right of way. Pedestrians had to be smart about when crossing (even if that is technically, and legally incorrect). I don't own a car, and I live in a big Northeast US city so walking and public transportation is my main mode of transit - jaywalking is a way of life in Boston and NYC from experience and is probably similar in other NE cities. However, I also think your order is totally wrong, in my mind it is the opposite, the biggest, heaviest vehicles should have ROW especially at this point in history when the average driver is distracted by so many things in his vehicle. Response times are going to be suboptimal ... pedestrians needs to be mindful of where they are traversing.
jaykru 14y ago
Wow. I live in Cincinnati and my name is Jay. Unfortunately I wasn't around to coin the term.
sparknlaunch12 14y ago
Interesting. In the UK jaywalking is legal but there has been an increase in pedestrian deaths. The assumed cause is "zombies" - pedestrians listening to music via headphones not paying enough attention. Same has happened to zombie cyclists. Funny story is a friend who jay walked at 2am in a western European village. Arrested and fined. Go figure?
- scott_w 14y ago
  One of my colleagues seemed surprised that jaywalking is legal in the UK. Another friend seemed perplexed when a car stopped to let him across the road. I think it stems down to our different attitude. We're taught in school to "stop, look, listen" but all major road campaigns focus on the driver's behaviour e.g. speeding, drink/drugs. I think as far as cyclists go, I don't think music should affect your awareness of the road. Being able to hear cars behind you helps, but you should always be looking before you move.
  - idleloops 14y ago
    I agree with you about the music. I used to listen to music on my push bike - but I don't now - mainly because if I turn it up to the point I can actually hear it over the din of the cars, I'd damage my ears. I could always hear the traffic over the music. Probably more so than a driver with the stereo turned up. Other cyclists weren't that happy to see me place headphones on. Though if you mute one sense, it can heighten another. I see plenty of cyclists that don't observe the roads properly - even signalling and veering out without looking behind - at least I use my eyes. I'm more concerned myself about drivers that I still see daily using their mobile phones at the wheel. A cyclist has a higher reaction time than a driver traveling at speed - something that drivers forget. That's not to say you don't need to be alert.
  - chollida1 14y ago
    > Another friend seemed perplexed when a car stopped to let him across the road. I'm Canadian and the motorist behaviour you get depends on what part of Canada you live in. Out east cars stop to let pedestrians walk. In Quebec/Ontario they seem to speed up to signal that you'd better not get in there way. Out West cars and people seem to have an agreement that people time their walking so that the car passes them before they get to the middle of the road, but no one slows down.
its_so_on 14y ago
interesting author name
- its_so_on 14y ago
  I'm not implying anything, it just made me smile that the article on how jaywalking was introduced by a "conspiracy" of auto interests was written by Sarah Goodyear. Like, the plot thickens...
- Drbble 14y ago
  "aptonym"
jeza 14y ago
I was in Vietnam recently. To the westerner their city streets look chaotic and impossible to cross as most people get around by motorbike and there is rarely a gap in traffic. Though it turns out if you cross the road slowly and predictably, it's safer than crossing the street in any western cities. The motorbikes will just go around you or if that's not possible they'll stop. You have to be a little more careful of cars though. Overall they seem to have little or no concept of anyone having right of way on the road (technically that doesn't apply here either but people seem to think they have right of way). Drivers just always have to be on alert.
- AngryParsley 14y ago
  It's not safer. The US has 15 deaths per 100,000 vehicles per year. Vietnam has over 1,200 deaths per 100,000 vehicles per year. Even if you only look at road fatalities per capita, they still have 50% more than the US. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...
  - jeza 14y ago
    Thanks for the stats. I am actually in Australia, which has even fewer fatalities (8 per 100,000 vehicles according to that link), which could probably be attributed to strong government advertising campaigns and enforcement of speed limits. We have a similar attitude towards pedestrians as the US and the penalty for killing someone while driving is a watered down culpable driving charge which only applies for dangerous driving, rather than manslaughter. Would be interesting to compare the crash rates still, but rather academic if the fatalities are so much higher. In any case I maintain that crossing the road in the same manner we did in Vietnam would have you pancaked here on a busy road with cars travelling at 60 km/h. The difference is that people just don't do that here.
  - Drbble 14y ago
    It's would help to get deaths per mile driven, too. Do Vietnamese cars drive more or less than Americans? My auto sits in my garage all year, quite safely.
idleloops 14y ago
I sometimes think it would be better to just remove the sidewalk and enforce a low speed restriction on roads. Sidewalks in the UK must cost a fortune, and often the roads without are more attractive (I'm thinking country/village lanes as opposed to motorways) .
- jarl 14y ago
  The Netherlands has been doing this for decades. In the so-called woonerfs pedestrians and cyclists have priority over motorists. Ideally there are no curbs, signs or road markings, but a very low speed limit is enforced. Kids can play in the middle of the street. Sounds good to me.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  In the US we have a weird property of our speed limits. The norm is for them to be under-posted. So a 45 mph road is usually one that you can (and in some circumstances, should) take at 50-55 mph. And on most of those roads, you won't get a ticket for going 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit, because that's the normal speed. There are two problems with this. First, there are a lot of country roads that are properly posted, and the typical 5-10 over is seriously unsafe. I would rather increase speed limits where appropriate and enforce them. Second, in urban areas, the limit is set for reasons not related to road safety, and those reasons are a lot less flexible. 10 mph over the typical urban speed limit (of 25 mph) is the difference between about a 15% chance of killing a pedestrian and a 65% chance. The reality is that people don't respond strongly to posted speed limits. They just aren't enforced often enough for the posted limit to be a major consideration for most drivers. Traffic calming is far more effective (if also controversial).
  - roguecoder 14y ago
    I saw a study showing the best way to cut down on pedestrian deaths in residential areas was to eliminate the center line. When cars have to watch out for other cars they slow down and pay more attention.
aleyan 14y ago
The article suggests that drivers who kill people get off lightly in NYC and that may be true. But what statistics say is that the City has been progressively getting safer for pedestrians over the past decade. There were 4.87 fatalities per 100,000 in NYC in 2001 and that number has dropped to 2.8 per 100,000 for 2011. Perhaps City officials found it more useful to make safety improvements and changing the behavior of all drivers than to harshly punish drivers who made a fatal mistake after the fact. http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2011b%2Fpr460-11.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1 http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4...
- burgerbrain 14y ago
  What I really don't understand is this obsession some people seem to have with jailing people for a mistake that will already haunt them for the rest of their lives.
  - T-hawk 14y ago
    Deterrence. Motivation for all the other drivers to pay attention and keep control of their cars at all times. Legislation alone can't stop pedestrian deaths, drivers must change their behavior.
    - burgerbrain 14y ago
      The desire to not go to jail is stronger than the desire to not kill someone? I know when I slow down for pedestrains I'm thinking about not hitting people, not not going to jail. Maybe I give others too much credit.
      - narkee 14y ago
        I don't know about other places, but on the highway in Michigan near construction sites they sometimes have signs saying something like "If you injure a worker, it's a $5000 fine and up to 25 years in jail". Note the precedence of the $5000 fine before the 25 years of jail time. Clearly the Michigan DOT thinks that fines and jail time are necessary incentives to not kill or harm construction workers.
yxhuvud 14y ago
"The responsibility for crashes always lay with the driver." This is still the case here in Sweden.
sparknlaunch12 14y ago
check out this guy who tried to drive his car into the Paris metro.... Apparently there was a sign that said"parking". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17829438 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17829438 Some compare cars to guns. This is in terms of danger to life. some research suggests car accidents should be treated like an illness or disease.
drucken 14y ago
Having been brought up in the UK, I think this is one of the situations where we look at the rest of the world and think they are quite literally insane... Why would you not have right of way on public roads? Everyone is a pedestrian at the end of the day! That said, I found California's drivers surprisingly like those at home. What is also interesting about the UK is how the laws are balanced. UK: - no concept of "jaywalking". Pedestrians have right of way. - but no vehicular manslaughter/homicide laws. They even removed an old law called "reckless driving" due to being too hard to prove (it required proving state of mind). - there are only specific offenses while using a vehicle "causing death by dangerous driving", "causing death by careless driving while unfit through alcohol/over prescribed limit" and a few others.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
robatsu 14y ago
I live in Japan 1/2 time. Apparently, when a driver here hits a pedestrian or cyclist, he's got a lot of explaining to do. As a result, the drivers are so attentive that it is not at all unusual on reasonably busy secondary routes to see a mother pedaling her bicycle with an infant in the basket and another small child following behind on a kids bike. And like most parents, we let our son walk to school by himself from about 2d grade along a route where he had to cross some fairly major 4 lane streets.

104 points by aarghh 14y ago

Over here in Europe, or possibly only Slovenia, we have a similar thing going on. If the driver does something stupid and plows into a pedestrian - that's manslaughter. If an accident happens and they end up on the sidewalk ... well then it's not really anybody's fault. It was an accident. I'm not sure why you would really want to press criminal charges against somebody who, following a difficult situation on the road, ended up unfortunately damaging someone. However, if the person is on a crosswalk. Then it's the driver should be charged at least with manslaughter ... unless they're rear-ended or there's some other circumstance out of their control that made them unable to stop.

ktizo 14y ago
If a car ends up on the pavement and kills someone, then there should be at the very least an investigation to see if charges should be pressed. Given that pedestrians stepping into the road seems criminal by default in many US cities, then surely so should be cars driving on the pavement. Or would you be able to get out of a jaywalking ticket by claiming that it was accidental?
- Swizec 14y ago
  Tickets aren't "criminal". It's just a ticket. And yes, drivers do get ticketed and fined when they drive on the pavement. But a ticket does not criminal charges make.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    Perhaps I'm less on the semantic side of things, but you get tickets for violating the law, or penal code. The definition of criminal is (I'm guessing) 'person who breaks the law'. I suspect that, in light of that, you get tickets for criminal behavior. There are less criminal charges, for sure -- like driving at night without working headlights, but that still violates the law requiring you to maintain a safe and drivable vehicle, and is as such a criminal act.
    - lazerwalker 14y ago
      There is a legal distinction between 'civil' and 'criminal' law. To oversimplify things, 'criminal' laws are ones that reflect some sort of moral code (e.g. laws against murder and manslaughter), and 'civil' laws are ones that are simply rules (e.g. speed limits, jaywalking). Civil cases can't be punished with jail time or anything like that.
      - bmelton 14y ago
        I don't know that I'm yet convinced that speeding is a civil offense. Can you give me an example of a civil offense that I would get a ticket for? I have always thought of civil laws as those that corporations need to abide. Perhaps I'm wrong? As for speed limits and jaywalking specifically, you appear to be right that they aren't criminal offenses until a threshold has been crossed (e.g., speeding 15 over the limit). But those seem to be considered 'infractions', and I admittedly don't know where the lines are.
        dripton 14y ago
        In the US we have three kinds of charges: felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. Felonies are major criminal offenses. Misdemeanors are minor criminal offenses. Infractions are oopsies. Most traffic charges are treated as infractions, even when they lead to levels of damage or injury that would ordinarily mean a misdemeanor or felony. Cars are somehow "special." If you want to get away with murder in the US, definitely use a car not a gun. (But don't be drunk. Drunk driving is no longer socially acceptable -- if you're drunk and kill someone with your car, that's serious jail time. If you're just a bad driver and kill someone with your car, that's an oopsie.)
        ghurlman 14y ago
        What state do you live in where vehicular manslaughter isn't a felony charge? Rich and/or well-connected folks notwithstanding...
        14y ago
  - ghurlman 14y ago
    It is indeed a criminal charge. By paying the ticket, you are submitting a guilty plea. A low-level charge, sure (depending on the ticket), but a charge nevertheless.
    - noahc 14y ago
      It sounds to me like all charges are criminal in your mind if they involve a finding of the court. This is not true
      - ghurlman 14y ago
        Just the findings that involve charges stemming from the penal code, and involve being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt vs. the civil standard of a preponderance of evidence.
yxhuvud 14y ago
If a car have to go up on a sidewalk and kill someone then the driver does not have a good enough control over the car.
tomp 14y ago
You should press charges not against the driver of the car who kills/injures a pedestrian (on the sidewalk), but the one that caused the accident - he's the ultimate reason why the person got killed/injured.
maratd 14y ago
> I'm not sure why you would really want to press criminal charges against somebody who, following a difficult situation on the road, ended up unfortunately damaging someone. I've been driving in New York City since I was 16. I'm 31 now. I've been in many difficult situations, even a major collision, but I've never found the need to plow into the sidewalk. There are people out there who are cowards. By that, I mean they would rather risk harm to others than to themselves. When you are about to collide with another vehicle on the road, you do not swerve into the sidewalk. No. You take your chances with the collision. People who endanger others for the sake of their own skin are trash and should be prosecuted. You use your driving expertise to stay on the road and if you do not have the skill-set to do that, you shouldn't be driving.
- ArtB 14y ago
  > You use your driving expertise to stay on the road and if you do not have the skill-set to do that, you shouldn't be driving. Unfortunately, in most many places in North America you cannot function in society without a vehicle thus even if you know you shouldn't be drive the penalty is so great that almost all keep on driving. If there were reasonable alternatives like mass transportation then we could reasonably expect thus unqualified to use them, but in suburbia mass transit does not work. To me this is as rediculous campaigns against drunk driving that don't push for local busses to operate until at least an hour after bars close. tl;dr: one cannot reasonably expect people to behave responsibly without there being reasonable alternatives
  - malandrew 14y ago
    Actually there is a reasonable alternative: Don't live in cities that fail to provide a reasonable alternative. A car is only a reasonable alternative in rural areas and as a mode of inter-city transport.
    - ArtB 14y ago
      I think in Canada that describes only 3 cities, and even then a lot of the tech companies are on the outskirts since the offices are cheaper.

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago

I'd never considered that idea before: Cars are now more important than pedestrians. I've always had the opinion that pedestrians are above the drivers, but then again, I don't live in America. Perhaps things differ there.

ticks 14y ago
Yeah, drivers in my country are taught to watch out for vulnerable road users (i.e. pedestrians), moving a vehicle onto a pavement is prohibited except for access reasons.
idleloops 14y ago
I actually thought that Jaywalking was a joke - until I visited America. And it was incredibly frustrating for someone from the UK to cross the roads. I really loathed it. In my mind the rule of the road is something like: Pedestrians>Cyclists>Scooters>Motorbikes>Cars I always give large mass vehicles and pedestrian carriers a wide berth. Though a little common sense can go a long way! What's the problem crossing an empty road! Or even speeding on an empty road? It's the nanny state gone mad!
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- meddlepal 14y ago
  As an American it is funny you say that, when I visited France a few years back I spent time in Nice and Paris and it definitely seemed like road vehicles had the right of way. Pedestrians had to be smart about when crossing (even if that is technically, and legally incorrect). I don't own a car, and I live in a big Northeast US city so walking and public transportation is my main mode of transit - jaywalking is a way of life in Boston and NYC from experience and is probably similar in other NE cities. However, I also think your order is totally wrong, in my mind it is the opposite, the biggest, heaviest vehicles should have ROW especially at this point in history when the average driver is distracted by so many things in his vehicle. Response times are going to be suboptimal ... pedestrians needs to be mindful of where they are traversing.

jaykru 14y ago

Wow. I live in Cincinnati and my name is Jay. Unfortunately I wasn't around to coin the term.

sparknlaunch12 14y ago

Interesting. In the UK jaywalking is legal but there has been an increase in pedestrian deaths. The assumed cause is "zombies" - pedestrians listening to music via headphones not paying enough attention. Same has happened to zombie cyclists. Funny story is a friend who jay walked at 2am in a western European village. Arrested and fined. Go figure?

scott_w 14y ago
One of my colleagues seemed surprised that jaywalking is legal in the UK. Another friend seemed perplexed when a car stopped to let him across the road. I think it stems down to our different attitude. We're taught in school to "stop, look, listen" but all major road campaigns focus on the driver's behaviour e.g. speeding, drink/drugs. I think as far as cyclists go, I don't think music should affect your awareness of the road. Being able to hear cars behind you helps, but you should always be looking before you move.
- idleloops 14y ago
  I agree with you about the music. I used to listen to music on my push bike - but I don't now - mainly because if I turn it up to the point I can actually hear it over the din of the cars, I'd damage my ears. I could always hear the traffic over the music. Probably more so than a driver with the stereo turned up. Other cyclists weren't that happy to see me place headphones on. Though if you mute one sense, it can heighten another. I see plenty of cyclists that don't observe the roads properly - even signalling and veering out without looking behind - at least I use my eyes. I'm more concerned myself about drivers that I still see daily using their mobile phones at the wheel. A cyclist has a higher reaction time than a driver traveling at speed - something that drivers forget. That's not to say you don't need to be alert.
- chollida1 14y ago
  > Another friend seemed perplexed when a car stopped to let him across the road. I'm Canadian and the motorist behaviour you get depends on what part of Canada you live in. Out east cars stop to let pedestrians walk. In Quebec/Ontario they seem to speed up to signal that you'd better not get in there way. Out West cars and people seem to have an agreement that people time their walking so that the car passes them before they get to the middle of the road, but no one slows down.

its_so_on 14y ago

interesting author name

its_so_on 14y ago
I'm not implying anything, it just made me smile that the article on how jaywalking was introduced by a "conspiracy" of auto interests was written by Sarah Goodyear. Like, the plot thickens...
Drbble 14y ago
"aptonym"

jeza 14y ago

I was in Vietnam recently. To the westerner their city streets look chaotic and impossible to cross as most people get around by motorbike and there is rarely a gap in traffic. Though it turns out if you cross the road slowly and predictably, it's safer than crossing the street in any western cities. The motorbikes will just go around you or if that's not possible they'll stop. You have to be a little more careful of cars though. Overall they seem to have little or no concept of anyone having right of way on the road (technically that doesn't apply here either but people seem to think they have right of way). Drivers just always have to be on alert.

AngryParsley 14y ago
It's not safer. The US has 15 deaths per 100,000 vehicles per year. Vietnam has over 1,200 deaths per 100,000 vehicles per year. Even if you only look at road fatalities per capita, they still have 50% more than the US. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...
- jeza 14y ago
  Thanks for the stats. I am actually in Australia, which has even fewer fatalities (8 per 100,000 vehicles according to that link), which could probably be attributed to strong government advertising campaigns and enforcement of speed limits. We have a similar attitude towards pedestrians as the US and the penalty for killing someone while driving is a watered down culpable driving charge which only applies for dangerous driving, rather than manslaughter. Would be interesting to compare the crash rates still, but rather academic if the fatalities are so much higher. In any case I maintain that crossing the road in the same manner we did in Vietnam would have you pancaked here on a busy road with cars travelling at 60 km/h. The difference is that people just don't do that here.
- Drbble 14y ago
  It's would help to get deaths per mile driven, too. Do Vietnamese cars drive more or less than Americans? My auto sits in my garage all year, quite safely.

idleloops 14y ago

I sometimes think it would be better to just remove the sidewalk and enforce a low speed restriction on roads. Sidewalks in the UK must cost a fortune, and often the roads without are more attractive (I'm thinking country/village lanes as opposed to motorways) .

jarl 14y ago
The Netherlands has been doing this for decades. In the so-called woonerfs pedestrians and cyclists have priority over motorists. Ideally there are no curbs, signs or road markings, but a very low speed limit is enforced. Kids can play in the middle of the street. Sounds good to me.
michaelochurch 14y ago
In the US we have a weird property of our speed limits. The norm is for them to be under-posted. So a 45 mph road is usually one that you can (and in some circumstances, should) take at 50-55 mph. And on most of those roads, you won't get a ticket for going 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit, because that's the normal speed. There are two problems with this. First, there are a lot of country roads that are properly posted, and the typical 5-10 over is seriously unsafe. I would rather increase speed limits where appropriate and enforce them. Second, in urban areas, the limit is set for reasons not related to road safety, and those reasons are a lot less flexible. 10 mph over the typical urban speed limit (of 25 mph) is the difference between about a 15% chance of killing a pedestrian and a 65% chance. The reality is that people don't respond strongly to posted speed limits. They just aren't enforced often enough for the posted limit to be a major consideration for most drivers. Traffic calming is far more effective (if also controversial).
- roguecoder 14y ago
  I saw a study showing the best way to cut down on pedestrian deaths in residential areas was to eliminate the center line. When cars have to watch out for other cars they slow down and pay more attention.

aleyan 14y ago

The article suggests that drivers who kill people get off lightly in NYC and that may be true. But what statistics say is that the City has been progressively getting safer for pedestrians over the past decade. There were 4.87 fatalities per 100,000 in NYC in 2001 and that number has dropped to 2.8 per 100,000 for 2011. Perhaps City officials found it more useful to make safety improvements and changing the behavior of all drivers than to harshly punish drivers who made a fatal mistake after the fact. http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2011b%2Fpr460-11.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1 http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4...

burgerbrain 14y ago
What I really don't understand is this obsession some people seem to have with jailing people for a mistake that will already haunt them for the rest of their lives.
- T-hawk 14y ago
  Deterrence. Motivation for all the other drivers to pay attention and keep control of their cars at all times. Legislation alone can't stop pedestrian deaths, drivers must change their behavior.
  - burgerbrain 14y ago
    The desire to not go to jail is stronger than the desire to not kill someone? I know when I slow down for pedestrains I'm thinking about not hitting people, not not going to jail. Maybe I give others too much credit.
    - narkee 14y ago
      I don't know about other places, but on the highway in Michigan near construction sites they sometimes have signs saying something like "If you injure a worker, it's a $5000 fine and up to 25 years in jail". Note the precedence of the $5000 fine before the 25 years of jail time. Clearly the Michigan DOT thinks that fines and jail time are necessary incentives to not kill or harm construction workers.

yxhuvud 14y ago

"The responsibility for crashes always lay with the driver." This is still the case here in Sweden.

sparknlaunch12 14y ago

check out this guy who tried to drive his car into the Paris metro.... Apparently there was a sign that said"parking". http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17829438 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17829438 Some compare cars to guns. This is in terms of danger to life. some research suggests car accidents should be treated like an illness or disease.

drucken 14y ago

Having been brought up in the UK, I think this is one of the situations where we look at the rest of the world and think they are quite literally insane... Why would you not have right of way on public roads? Everyone is a pedestrian at the end of the day! That said, I found California's drivers surprisingly like those at home. What is also interesting about the UK is how the laws are balanced. UK: - no concept of "jaywalking". Pedestrians have right of way. - but no vehicular manslaughter/homicide laws. They even removed an old law called "reckless driving" due to being too hard to prove (it required proving state of mind). - there are only specific offenses while using a vehicle "causing death by dangerous driving", "causing death by careless driving while unfit through alcohol/over prescribed limit" and a few others.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

robatsu 14y ago

I live in Japan 1/2 time. Apparently, when a driver here hits a pedestrian or cyclist, he's got a lot of explaining to do. As a result, the drivers are so attentive that it is not at all unusual on reasonably busy secondary routes to see a mother pedaling her bicycle with an infant in the basket and another small child following behind on a kids bike. And like most parents, we let our son walk to school by himself from about 2d grade along a route where he had to cross some fairly major 4 lane streets.