4 ms·

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 sl

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)
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    Sure, the results have to be measured and the rules adjusted. But a possible result of this rule is exactly that it will make drivers drive more slowly in general, for fear of hitting pedestrians, which would overall reduce accidents, even outside of pedestrian deaths.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    > will enforcement of the rule bring back those 100 people? Yes. Enforcement of the rules, when done properly, does save lives. We have psychology studies that show that judgement/punishment needs to be swift/certain. When that is the case, human behavior is altered (sometimes permanently). > and that in real life you won't get 100% compliance and enforcement No one needs 100% compliance. We need something up near 98% or 99%, which is achievable.
simgt 2y ago
> It's a slippery slope with a 2 ton SUV driving at 50mph and a person "interpreting" that it's not disrupting it. Maybe the problem here is that a 2 ton SUV shouldn't be driven at 50mph when pedestrians are anywhere near. I always find it interesting how the ones advocating for the absolute freedom of owning and driving an SUV everywhere, to carry 70kg of human flesh, are usually also the ones asking for the restriction of the freedom of other users of the public space.
- freefaler 2y ago
  The problem is not how big is the car or any other subject. The problem with any rule that is badly formulated is the ambiguity it creates. In this instance this bad definition can lead to very bad consequences. Bad rules = ambiguous rules and need for interpretation and that leads to many bad consequences.
  - simgt 2y ago
    There is no ambiguity here, if you don't have the right of way you will be liable if something happens. But "something happening" will likely have to be more than just disrupting an SUV driver going at 50mph by making him slow down a bit.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    There are many countries in the world that have such "ambiguous" rules wrt pedestrian crossings. Much of Europe, for example. Can you cite any specific examples of this being a problem anywhere in practice?
ithkuil 2y ago
I think jaywalking being technically illegal allows law enforcement to use an expedient to arrest people they want to arrest for other reasons, for example, there is no law that would allow to arrest you for "walking while black", but crossing the street at an unauthorized point? Yeah that works See a judge doing the right thing: https://youtu.be/0PUgbArgXJA?si=9-8viC2MM-mIGEFe https://youtu.be/0PUgbArgXJA?si=9-8viC2MM-mIGEFe We don't need a society that relies only on judges doing the right thing. We need better laws

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)
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  Sure, the results have to be measured and the rules adjusted. But a possible result of this rule is exactly that it will make drivers drive more slowly in general, for fear of hitting pedestrians, which would overall reduce accidents, even outside of pedestrian deaths.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  > will enforcement of the rule bring back those 100 people? Yes. Enforcement of the rules, when done properly, does save lives. We have psychology studies that show that judgement/punishment needs to be swift/certain. When that is the case, human behavior is altered (sometimes permanently). > and that in real life you won't get 100% compliance and enforcement No one needs 100% compliance. We need something up near 98% or 99%, which is achievable.

simgt 2y ago

> It's a slippery slope with a 2 ton SUV driving at 50mph and a person "interpreting" that it's not disrupting it. Maybe the problem here is that a 2 ton SUV shouldn't be driven at 50mph when pedestrians are anywhere near. I always find it interesting how the ones advocating for the absolute freedom of owning and driving an SUV everywhere, to carry 70kg of human flesh, are usually also the ones asking for the restriction of the freedom of other users of the public space.

freefaler 2y ago
The problem is not how big is the car or any other subject. The problem with any rule that is badly formulated is the ambiguity it creates. In this instance this bad definition can lead to very bad consequences. Bad rules = ambiguous rules and need for interpretation and that leads to many bad consequences.
- simgt 2y ago
  There is no ambiguity here, if you don't have the right of way you will be liable if something happens. But "something happening" will likely have to be more than just disrupting an SUV driver going at 50mph by making him slow down a bit.
- int_19h 2y ago
  There are many countries in the world that have such "ambiguous" rules wrt pedestrian crossings. Much of Europe, for example. Can you cite any specific examples of this being a problem anywhere in practice?

ithkuil 2y ago

I think jaywalking being technically illegal allows law enforcement to use an expedient to arrest people they want to arrest for other reasons, for example, there is no law that would allow to arrest you for "walking while black", but crossing the street at an unauthorized point? Yeah that works See a judge doing the right thing: https://youtu.be/0PUgbArgXJA?si=9-8viC2MM-mIGEFe https://youtu.be/0PUgbArgXJA?si=9-8viC2MM-mIGEFe We don't need a society that relies only on judges doing the right thing. We need better laws