5 ms·

Yes, crossing at intersections is much more complex, with traffic typically coming from many more directions than away from intersections.

wahern 2y ago
And yet jaywalking accounts for the majority of pedestrian deaths, despite being a fraction of the number of crossings. Believe it or not, most drivers do look out for pedestrians. Some better than others, but another set of eyeballs is invaluable, especially from the actual car that risks hitting you. Unfortunately, drivers do not expect people to cross in the middle of the street. And they never will, generally speaking. People are constantly milling around on the sidewalk, standing on curbs, doing all manner of crazy things, but not actually crossing. From a driver's perspective, a pedestrian about to cross the street typically looks indistinguishable from a pedestrian just doing the normal insane stuff pedestrians do. Then in a split second they go from normal pedestrian to crossing pedestrian, which is often much too late for a driver to respond, assuming they even noticed, unless it's at an expected crossing. Yes, intersections feel dangerous and risky. But that's precisely why they're safer--pedestrians and drivers alike feel the anxiety, whereas when jaywalking both the pedestrian and car often don't sense any risk at all.
- frmersdog 2y ago
  These deaths largely occur on high-speed roadways where people shouldn't be walking, or where the speed should be lower. The issue in both cases is a lack of public transit density. If you're in a dense area with a ton of pedestrians, the speed should be low enough that you CAN react, and there should be transit options that lower the number of car trips. In less dense areas, where automobile speeds are higher, auto and pedestrian traffic should be segregated; again, there should be other transit options that keep pedestrians away from spaces ripe for collisions. Essentially, build more rail/bus lanes/bike lanes and lower traffic speed. The problem isn't jaywalking and it never was.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    and the separation has to be realistic. if you have businesses and residences fronting onto opposite sides of a high speed road and the nearest legal crossing is a half mile away, that's not realistic. almost nobody will decide "hey let me add a whole mile of walking to my journey and a few minutes at a signal to cross safely."
  - wahern 2y ago
    I live in SF. We just had an accident the other day that indisputably can be pinned on jaywalking--late at night, cross where there was an actual fence, and the car hadn't been speeding. In fact, the limit is 25 there. Jaywalking figures prominently in pedestrian deaths in this city, and it's not simply because of speeding as there simply aren't that many streets where you can go that fast, and in fact in some of the worst areas (e.g. Tenderloin) you'll find the slowest speeds. Pedestrian deaths are also often elderly, as younger victims would have been more likely to survive at the speeds they were hit. Another major issue in this city, though, is visibility, what with all the tightly packed parallel parking, and streets (especially in the western half) just the perfectly wrong width for modern car A pillars. I would fully support shutting down dozens of streets that criss-cross the city to through traffic and dedicate them to biking and pedestrians. The bike lanes here (where people end up dying, regardless) piss me off to no end as much of time the city could have just given an entire street over to bikes a block away, rather than some of the most trafficked (by cars) thoroughfares, and everybody would be better off. But another odd thing about SF is that pedestrians simply don't look. In every other major city I've lived or visited, in the US and around the world, the vast majority of pedestrians look before crossing a street. I've lived in SF for nearly 20 years and I can't get over how people just cross the streets--wide streets, busy streets, blind corners, etc--without a care in the world. It doesn't make it any less tragic, but... it's just so fscking bizarre. And I don't mean to excuse their deaths. Cars should be more careful, and they're definitely not--I'm wary of letting my children cross streets alone here, and I get honked regularly for not gunning it the moment a pedestrian crosses the center line when crossing. At the same time I find it very difficult to get too worked up when people blithely step in front of dump trucks (accident two weeks ago where even the city said there was absolutely nothing the city could have done to improve that intersection--the person just walked in front of the truck against every precaution).
- 0x457 2y ago
  > And yet jaywalking accounts for the majority of pedestrian deaths, despite being a fraction of the number of crossings. It's because some people think jumping out of bush at 11pm wearing all black to cross right in front of a car is a good idea.
- goodpoint 2y ago
  > jaywalking accounts for the majority of pedestrian deaths No, car drivers are responsible for pedestrian deaths. Please put the blame where in belongs.
- shkkmo 2y ago
  > And yet jaywalking accounts for the majority of pedestrian deaths, despite being a fraction of the number of crossings. This is simply false. While most pedestrian deaths happen on open roadways (with a 3:1 ratio), that isn't the same thing as jay walking. Indeed, most of these fatalities involve people on the side of the road, usually in the dark. Most pedestrian deaths happen at night. This is when it is easiest to see cars coming and avoid getting hit when crossing, (atleast if the cars have their lights on, which is frequently not the case). Most pedestrian deaths happen in areas with no sidewalk. If there's no sidewalk, then there isn't going to be a safe option to cross. https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/GHSA/Pedestrian-Spotlight-Full-Report23 https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/GHSA/Pedestrian... Please don't make up and share facts because they support your worldview.
  - explodingman 2y ago
    Good reference. Thanks!

wahern 2y ago

And yet jaywalking accounts for the majority of pedestrian deaths, despite being a fraction of the number of crossings. Believe it or not, most drivers do look out for pedestrians. Some better than others, but another set of eyeballs is invaluable, especially from the actual car that risks hitting you. Unfortunately, drivers do not expect people to cross in the middle of the street. And they never will, generally speaking. People are constantly milling around on the sidewalk, standing on curbs, doing all manner of crazy things, but not actually crossing. From a driver's perspective, a pedestrian about to cross the street typically looks indistinguishable from a pedestrian just doing the normal insane stuff pedestrians do. Then in a split second they go from normal pedestrian to crossing pedestrian, which is often much too late for a driver to respond, assuming they even noticed, unless it's at an expected crossing. Yes, intersections feel dangerous and risky. But that's precisely why they're safer--pedestrians and drivers alike feel the anxiety, whereas when jaywalking both the pedestrian and car often don't sense any risk at all.

frmersdog 2y ago
These deaths largely occur on high-speed roadways where people shouldn't be walking, or where the speed should be lower. The issue in both cases is a lack of public transit density. If you're in a dense area with a ton of pedestrians, the speed should be low enough that you CAN react, and there should be transit options that lower the number of car trips. In less dense areas, where automobile speeds are higher, auto and pedestrian traffic should be segregated; again, there should be other transit options that keep pedestrians away from spaces ripe for collisions. Essentially, build more rail/bus lanes/bike lanes and lower traffic speed. The problem isn't jaywalking and it never was.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  and the separation has to be realistic. if you have businesses and residences fronting onto opposite sides of a high speed road and the nearest legal crossing is a half mile away, that's not realistic. almost nobody will decide "hey let me add a whole mile of walking to my journey and a few minutes at a signal to cross safely."
- wahern 2y ago
  I live in SF. We just had an accident the other day that indisputably can be pinned on jaywalking--late at night, cross where there was an actual fence, and the car hadn't been speeding. In fact, the limit is 25 there. Jaywalking figures prominently in pedestrian deaths in this city, and it's not simply because of speeding as there simply aren't that many streets where you can go that fast, and in fact in some of the worst areas (e.g. Tenderloin) you'll find the slowest speeds. Pedestrian deaths are also often elderly, as younger victims would have been more likely to survive at the speeds they were hit. Another major issue in this city, though, is visibility, what with all the tightly packed parallel parking, and streets (especially in the western half) just the perfectly wrong width for modern car A pillars. I would fully support shutting down dozens of streets that criss-cross the city to through traffic and dedicate them to biking and pedestrians. The bike lanes here (where people end up dying, regardless) piss me off to no end as much of time the city could have just given an entire street over to bikes a block away, rather than some of the most trafficked (by cars) thoroughfares, and everybody would be better off. But another odd thing about SF is that pedestrians simply don't look. In every other major city I've lived or visited, in the US and around the world, the vast majority of pedestrians look before crossing a street. I've lived in SF for nearly 20 years and I can't get over how people just cross the streets--wide streets, busy streets, blind corners, etc--without a care in the world. It doesn't make it any less tragic, but... it's just so fscking bizarre. And I don't mean to excuse their deaths. Cars should be more careful, and they're definitely not--I'm wary of letting my children cross streets alone here, and I get honked regularly for not gunning it the moment a pedestrian crosses the center line when crossing. At the same time I find it very difficult to get too worked up when people blithely step in front of dump trucks (accident two weeks ago where even the city said there was absolutely nothing the city could have done to improve that intersection--the person just walked in front of the truck against every precaution).
0x457 2y ago
> And yet jaywalking accounts for the majority of pedestrian deaths, despite being a fraction of the number of crossings. It's because some people think jumping out of bush at 11pm wearing all black to cross right in front of a car is a good idea.
goodpoint 2y ago
> jaywalking accounts for the majority of pedestrian deaths No, car drivers are responsible for pedestrian deaths. Please put the blame where in belongs.
shkkmo 2y ago
> And yet jaywalking accounts for the majority of pedestrian deaths, despite being a fraction of the number of crossings. This is simply false. While most pedestrian deaths happen on open roadways (with a 3:1 ratio), that isn't the same thing as jay walking. Indeed, most of these fatalities involve people on the side of the road, usually in the dark. Most pedestrian deaths happen at night. This is when it is easiest to see cars coming and avoid getting hit when crossing, (atleast if the cars have their lights on, which is frequently not the case). Most pedestrian deaths happen in areas with no sidewalk. If there's no sidewalk, then there isn't going to be a safe option to cross. https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/GHSA/Pedestrian-Spotlight-Full-Report23 https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/GHSA/Pedestrian... Please don't make up and share facts because they support your worldview.
- explodingman 2y ago
  Good reference. Thanks!