5 ms·

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 real

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.
- idleloops 14y ago
  In Sri Lanka there is a pecking order. And bigger wins out. High mass vehicles haven't got the ability to stop quickly - or get out the way like a pedestrian or cyclist so I understand that. However I can't help but feel that we have our priorities skewed. I personally loathe motorised traffic (except for when I need it!) I'd rather confine freight to nights. And keep traffic out of town centres. And let pedestrians and cyclists relax a little. I think we should all me mindful on the road, but it's pretty tedious being forever vigilant. Some pedestrians haven't fast reactions at all. As a cyclist, I'm happy to use the sidewalk where the road I feel is too dangerous - but that wouldn't be at the expense of a pedestrian's right of way. I live near the sea, and the nicest place to cycle is along the sea front away from traffic - it's glorious - but yet illegal. Yet if there were more routes like this, we might have more cyclists. In this case it's illegal as the board walk is there for pedestrians, but it's empty for a good amount of the year. I would still give a pedestrian right of way. So it's in part, attitude. Not thinking that I have right of way. Having said that pedestrian zones are nice too.
- telent 14y ago
  > 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 This sounds to me like you're saying that the law should reward people for wielding more power (bigger heavier vehicles) less responsibly (driving distracted). A prudent pedestrian will and should be mindful of where he's going and I don't think anyone with an instinct to self-preservation would say otherwise, but shouldn't the law serve the interests of the vulnerable where they conflict with the powerful?
  - evgen 14y ago
    The law recognizes reality; a motor vehicle, even one driven by a "perfect" driver, has far fewer degrees of freedom in any given situation than a pedestrian. The vehicle has momentum, limitations on the braking force that can be applied to this momentum, limitations on the ability of the steering system to change the direction that the vehicle mass is traveling in, and sensory limitations for the driver that can decrease the reaction time available. A pedestrian can not move as fast or as far in reaction to such a situation, but they can change direction of travel far more quickly and have a better ability to hear or see the oncoming vehicle.
    - telent 14y ago
      In a place and time where the motor lobby had not been so successful, the law would probably recognize this reality by imposing strict limitations on the use of machinery which, as you describe it, is so intrinsically dangerous. Locomotive Acts, for example
yxhuvud 14y ago
The rule against speeding on an empty road is there because the road may stop being empty before you can react and adjust your speed.

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.

idleloops 14y ago
In Sri Lanka there is a pecking order. And bigger wins out. High mass vehicles haven't got the ability to stop quickly - or get out the way like a pedestrian or cyclist so I understand that. However I can't help but feel that we have our priorities skewed. I personally loathe motorised traffic (except for when I need it!) I'd rather confine freight to nights. And keep traffic out of town centres. And let pedestrians and cyclists relax a little. I think we should all me mindful on the road, but it's pretty tedious being forever vigilant. Some pedestrians haven't fast reactions at all. As a cyclist, I'm happy to use the sidewalk where the road I feel is too dangerous - but that wouldn't be at the expense of a pedestrian's right of way. I live near the sea, and the nicest place to cycle is along the sea front away from traffic - it's glorious - but yet illegal. Yet if there were more routes like this, we might have more cyclists. In this case it's illegal as the board walk is there for pedestrians, but it's empty for a good amount of the year. I would still give a pedestrian right of way. So it's in part, attitude. Not thinking that I have right of way. Having said that pedestrian zones are nice too.
telent 14y ago
> 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 This sounds to me like you're saying that the law should reward people for wielding more power (bigger heavier vehicles) less responsibly (driving distracted). A prudent pedestrian will and should be mindful of where he's going and I don't think anyone with an instinct to self-preservation would say otherwise, but shouldn't the law serve the interests of the vulnerable where they conflict with the powerful?
- evgen 14y ago
  The law recognizes reality; a motor vehicle, even one driven by a "perfect" driver, has far fewer degrees of freedom in any given situation than a pedestrian. The vehicle has momentum, limitations on the braking force that can be applied to this momentum, limitations on the ability of the steering system to change the direction that the vehicle mass is traveling in, and sensory limitations for the driver that can decrease the reaction time available. A pedestrian can not move as fast or as far in reaction to such a situation, but they can change direction of travel far more quickly and have a better ability to hear or see the oncoming vehicle.
  - telent 14y ago
    In a place and time where the motor lobby had not been so successful, the law would probably recognize this reality by imposing strict limitations on the use of machinery which, as you describe it, is so intrinsically dangerous. Locomotive Acts, for example

yxhuvud 14y ago

The rule against speeding on an empty road is there because the road may stop being empty before you can react and adjust your speed.