6 ms·

I kind of wonder now whether that was the most broken law in history.

by zjp 2y ago

readthenotes1 2y ago
Asking pedestrians to cross streets where cars are stopped and they are mostly protected? How is that broken?
- hapidjus 2y ago
  Broken as in people not respecting it I assume.
- badgersnake 2y ago
  I’m guessing they meant most frequently broken. But as someone who lives in a country that has never had that law, I’m pretty sure it’s unnecessary.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    Thanks - I did not actually consider that interpretation!
- grujicd 2y ago
  Not broken in terms of design and intent, but broken by people all the time. As in "I broke the law, and the law won"
- relistan 2y ago
  Lots of ways. Some of them are detailed here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-16/jaywalking-laws-don-t-make-streets-safer https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-16/jaywalkin...
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  Because the pedestrians and roads were there before cars. Criminalizing the behavior was regulatory capture by Big Auto. It being enforced by police from Connecticut who treat NYC’s minorities like a VR simulation was broken. Strong recommendations and pointing out the loss in civil suits would have always been totally fine.
- zjp 2y ago
  Other posters are right, I meant 'most frequently broken'.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    It still worked the other way as well. Come to think of it, laws that are most frequently broken by the general public are also probably deeply broken in their concept or the worldview they were based on. For instance speeding laws, while making sense on paper, are completely inadequate for the thing they want to improve. Structural changes to either the roads or other infra, the cars, or more deterring power than a slap on the wrist are probably needed in the places where they're routinely broken by normal people.
- fire_lake 2y ago
  Making the pedestrians go the long way prioritises driving, which leads to more people driving, which leads to more traffic, fumes, etc. But most broken seems like a stretch!
  - Gigachad 2y ago
    The average person probably violates jaywalking laws multiple times a day. What other law do most people break constantly as just part of day to day life?
    - defrost 2y ago
      Anti-miscegenation laws were a common place one for some time .. arguably some alive today are still a living crime. Trevor Noah titled a book Born a Crime in reference to his birth in South Africa, similar laws remained in force in many US states until 1967 which means a number of people walking about the US today have an existence that was a crime.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      I imagine most Americans violate speeding and other vehicles moving laws far more often than jaywalking. I imagine the majority of Americans haven't actually crossed a street as a pedestrian in the last week. Why would they? They drive from their home to their job to the parking lot of the grocery store to the drive through pickup line at school for their kids. I'm one of the more transit/pedestrian/bike people in the group I routinely hang out with and I haven't actually crossed the street as a pedestrian in a few days.
      - int_19h 2y ago
        Even if you always drive, parking in large cities is often limited enough that you have to walk a fair bit from where you can find a spot to where you actually need to go.
        vel0city 2y ago
        You might overly be estimating your ideas of what is "urban". Tons of Americans never have to deal with crossing a street for their parking. They're not parking at some lot around the block and walking. It's all just a sea of pavement. City codes mandate each big box store has dozens of spots per shelf in the store. This on its face seems like a gross overstatement but looking at maps shows the truth of the seas of empty lots surrounding big box stores.
- reedf1 2y ago
  Granted you've misinterpreted the posters point - but I will respond to your perception of his point (which I agree with). You could easily imagine a world where pedestrians have the right of way on the streets, and cars "request access to the road" in a similar way that pedestrians do. Actually, if this is not easy for you to imagine - it suggests enormous internal bias.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    It would kill the utility of cars though, you could never drive faster than maybe 30 miles per hour or you would constantly run people over. Pedestrians are more nimble than cars, so it kind of makes sense that cars have the right of way. As far as I know, large container ships have right of way over small vessels for the same reason.
    - carom 2y ago
      >It would kill the utility of cars though, you could never drive faster than maybe 30 miles per hour That sounds lovely. I would live in that city.
      - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
        That city is London - well, to an extent. The majority of London roads have a 20mph limit.
        eertami 2y ago
        A lot of European cities are also 30kmph in residential/central areas, with even 20kmph limits in pedestrianised areas.
    - 0xEF 2y ago
      Have you ever driven through a downtown urban area? You can't go more than 30mph anyway, even if you wanted to. There is simply too much connections, turns, etc. And yet, I still disagree that pedestrians should be able to just enter the road willy-nilly. Crosswalks are there for safety because it sets the same expectations for everyone using the road, drivers included, thus creating order and flow that is generally reliable. This is also the same problem I have with cyclists that think they should be allowed to ride against traffic, ignore stop signs, etc. By not moving with the expected flow, they endanger themselves and creat problems. When I am making a right hand turn, for example, and a cyclist has decided to ride against traffic, I am not compelled to look to my right as I am timing my turn because I am not expecting traffic to be there since a right turn has you crossing zero lanes of traffic and merging with on-coning that would be on your left. I don't really like our car-centric roads in the US at all, but rules are in place for a reason.
- tmnvix 2y ago
  Because it's not 'asking' if it's a law. If you're legislating that people can't just walk across a deserted street where it's most convenient then you have a broken law. Legislate against disrupting traffic if you really need to. Not disrupting traffic? What's the problem?
  - freefaler 2y ago
    If the street is empty then it's easy to recognize that. However what will the rule be if there is a car, but far away, or not that far away. It's a slippery slope with a 2 ton SUV driving at 50mph and a person "interpreting" that it's not disrupting it. Ambiguity will be the problem and it is solved by the rule of "not crossing at all". The lesser of 2 evils.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      Cars are already supposed to slow down if they see pedestrians on the street, even if the pedestrian is crossing illegally, same as they are supposed to avoid drivers doing illegal things. It's the police's job to punish illegal behavior, not drivers'. So, in the situation you describe, the solution is clear: the car has to slow down, and any police officer is supposed to notice that the car had to slow down and issue some citation to the pedestrian for not respecting the right of way. This is exactly how all traffic violations work: if some car is not yielding to you, you don't drive into them, you break to avoid the accident, and hope that the police sees this and issues a citation to the other driver.
      - freefaler 2y ago
        Rules for people are not the same as a code for a compiler. You may enact a rule, but people are not guaranteed they will comply with it either because they will brake it or they will forget/ignore it. If a bad rule is enacted and it kills 100 people per year more, will enforcement of the rule bring back those 100 people? Rules should take into account the stupid things people will do and that in real life you won't get 100% compliance and enforcement won't get you to 100%. (many real life examples)
- consteval 2y ago
  Crosswalks are typically at intersections - this is NOT where pedestrians are most protected. Often, it's safer to cross in the middle of the road, particularly if it's one way. When you're at an intersection, there's cars coming from many directions. In addition, from the crosswalks I've seen they don't even stop turning cars - the turning cars have to be looking and stop themselves.
IshKebab 2y ago
Nah it's definitely speeding.
- zjp 2y ago
  oh, that's a good point. There are definitely more drivers globally than there are people in New York and you can break speed limits several times per trip just by floating around the limit +/- 1mph.
gosub100 2y ago
I find it comical that it's usually liberal leaning folks that want to use early 1900s interpretation of the law for why it's bogus. Yet they want "regulation" for so many contemporary issues. A true liberal would adapt and move with the times: vehicles are the primary way people move in most parts of the country. The average speed AND acceleration of cars (and the people driving them) is MUCH higher than the days of the Model-T. "Regulating" the coexistence of vehicles and living meat bags seems like common sense, and saying "cars weren't here 120 years ago" is irrelevant.

I kind of wonder now whether that was the most broken law in history.

by zjp 2y ago

I kind of wonder now whether that was the most broken law in history.

readthenotes1 2y ago

Asking pedestrians to cross streets where cars are stopped and they are mostly protected? How is that broken?

hapidjus 2y ago
Broken as in people not respecting it I assume.
badgersnake 2y ago
I’m guessing they meant most frequently broken. But as someone who lives in a country that has never had that law, I’m pretty sure it’s unnecessary.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  Thanks - I did not actually consider that interpretation!
grujicd 2y ago
Not broken in terms of design and intent, but broken by people all the time. As in "I broke the law, and the law won"
relistan 2y ago
Lots of ways. Some of them are detailed here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-16/jaywalking-laws-don-t-make-streets-safer https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-16/jaywalkin...
yieldcrv 2y ago
Because the pedestrians and roads were there before cars. Criminalizing the behavior was regulatory capture by Big Auto. It being enforced by police from Connecticut who treat NYC’s minorities like a VR simulation was broken. Strong recommendations and pointing out the loss in civil suits would have always been totally fine.
zjp 2y ago
Other posters are right, I meant 'most frequently broken'.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  It still worked the other way as well. Come to think of it, laws that are most frequently broken by the general public are also probably deeply broken in their concept or the worldview they were based on. For instance speeding laws, while making sense on paper, are completely inadequate for the thing they want to improve. Structural changes to either the roads or other infra, the cars, or more deterring power than a slap on the wrist are probably needed in the places where they're routinely broken by normal people.
fire_lake 2y ago
Making the pedestrians go the long way prioritises driving, which leads to more people driving, which leads to more traffic, fumes, etc. But most broken seems like a stretch!
- Gigachad 2y ago
  The average person probably violates jaywalking laws multiple times a day. What other law do most people break constantly as just part of day to day life?
  - defrost 2y ago
    Anti-miscegenation laws were a common place one for some time .. arguably some alive today are still a living crime. Trevor Noah titled a book Born a Crime in reference to his birth in South Africa, similar laws remained in force in many US states until 1967 which means a number of people walking about the US today have an existence that was a crime.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    I imagine most Americans violate speeding and other vehicles moving laws far more often than jaywalking. I imagine the majority of Americans haven't actually crossed a street as a pedestrian in the last week. Why would they? They drive from their home to their job to the parking lot of the grocery store to the drive through pickup line at school for their kids. I'm one of the more transit/pedestrian/bike people in the group I routinely hang out with and I haven't actually crossed the street as a pedestrian in a few days.
    - int_19h 2y ago
      Even if you always drive, parking in large cities is often limited enough that you have to walk a fair bit from where you can find a spot to where you actually need to go.
      - vel0city 2y ago
        You might overly be estimating your ideas of what is "urban". Tons of Americans never have to deal with crossing a street for their parking. They're not parking at some lot around the block and walking. It's all just a sea of pavement. City codes mandate each big box store has dozens of spots per shelf in the store. This on its face seems like a gross overstatement but looking at maps shows the truth of the seas of empty lots surrounding big box stores.
reedf1 2y ago
Granted you've misinterpreted the posters point - but I will respond to your perception of his point (which I agree with). You could easily imagine a world where pedestrians have the right of way on the streets, and cars "request access to the road" in a similar way that pedestrians do. Actually, if this is not easy for you to imagine - it suggests enormous internal bias.
- echoangle 2y ago
  It would kill the utility of cars though, you could never drive faster than maybe 30 miles per hour or you would constantly run people over. Pedestrians are more nimble than cars, so it kind of makes sense that cars have the right of way. As far as I know, large container ships have right of way over small vessels for the same reason.
  - carom 2y ago
    >It would kill the utility of cars though, you could never drive faster than maybe 30 miles per hour That sounds lovely. I would live in that city.
    - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
      That city is London - well, to an extent. The majority of London roads have a 20mph limit.
      - eertami 2y ago
        A lot of European cities are also 30kmph in residential/central areas, with even 20kmph limits in pedestrianised areas.
  - 0xEF 2y ago
    Have you ever driven through a downtown urban area? You can't go more than 30mph anyway, even if you wanted to. There is simply too much connections, turns, etc. And yet, I still disagree that pedestrians should be able to just enter the road willy-nilly. Crosswalks are there for safety because it sets the same expectations for everyone using the road, drivers included, thus creating order and flow that is generally reliable. This is also the same problem I have with cyclists that think they should be allowed to ride against traffic, ignore stop signs, etc. By not moving with the expected flow, they endanger themselves and creat problems. When I am making a right hand turn, for example, and a cyclist has decided to ride against traffic, I am not compelled to look to my right as I am timing my turn because I am not expecting traffic to be there since a right turn has you crossing zero lanes of traffic and merging with on-coning that would be on your left. I don't really like our car-centric roads in the US at all, but rules are in place for a reason.
tmnvix 2y ago
Because it's not 'asking' if it's a law. If you're legislating that people can't just walk across a deserted street where it's most convenient then you have a broken law. Legislate against disrupting traffic if you really need to. Not disrupting traffic? What's the problem?
- freefaler 2y ago
  If the street is empty then it's easy to recognize that. However what will the rule be if there is a car, but far away, or not that far away. It's a slippery slope with a 2 ton SUV driving at 50mph and a person "interpreting" that it's not disrupting it. Ambiguity will be the problem and it is solved by the rule of "not crossing at all". The lesser of 2 evils.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    Cars are already supposed to slow down if they see pedestrians on the street, even if the pedestrian is crossing illegally, same as they are supposed to avoid drivers doing illegal things. It's the police's job to punish illegal behavior, not drivers'. So, in the situation you describe, the solution is clear: the car has to slow down, and any police officer is supposed to notice that the car had to slow down and issue some citation to the pedestrian for not respecting the right of way. This is exactly how all traffic violations work: if some car is not yielding to you, you don't drive into them, you break to avoid the accident, and hope that the police sees this and issues a citation to the other driver.
    - freefaler 2y ago
      Rules for people are not the same as a code for a compiler. You may enact a rule, but people are not guaranteed they will comply with it either because they will brake it or they will forget/ignore it. If a bad rule is enacted and it kills 100 people per year more, will enforcement of the rule bring back those 100 people? Rules should take into account the stupid things people will do and that in real life you won't get 100% compliance and enforcement won't get you to 100%. (many real life examples)
consteval 2y ago
Crosswalks are typically at intersections - this is NOT where pedestrians are most protected. Often, it's safer to cross in the middle of the road, particularly if it's one way. When you're at an intersection, there's cars coming from many directions. In addition, from the crosswalks I've seen they don't even stop turning cars - the turning cars have to be looking and stop themselves.

IshKebab 2y ago

Nah it's definitely speeding.

zjp 2y ago
oh, that's a good point. There are definitely more drivers globally than there are people in New York and you can break speed limits several times per trip just by floating around the limit +/- 1mph.

gosub100 2y ago

I find it comical that it's usually liberal leaning folks that want to use early 1900s interpretation of the law for why it's bogus. Yet they want "regulation" for so many contemporary issues. A true liberal would adapt and move with the times: vehicles are the primary way people move in most parts of the country. The average speed AND acceleration of cars (and the people driving them) is MUCH higher than the days of the Model-T. "Regulating" the coexistence of vehicles and living meat bags seems like common sense, and saying "cars weren't here 120 years ago" is irrelevant.