4 ms·

The dichotomy is pretty interesting to me, given that most major cities in the country have been running high-publicity programs for the last decade to do every

The dichotomy is pretty interesting to me, given that most major cities in the country have been running high-publicity programs for the last decade to do everything possible to reduce car-related deaths, especially protecting pedestrians and bicyclists. (Cities like NYC and Seattle call it "vision zero", a vision of zero serious traffic injuries/deaths). They work to separate pedestrians and bicyclists from traffic, slow cars down with "traffic calming measures", lower speed limits, and so on. Those stated goals seem, to me, to clash with the idea of now making it up to people's discretion to cross roads wherever and whenever they want, rather than at dedicated, marked, predictable, traffic crossings equipped with signal lights that tell cars and pedestrians who has the right of way. I'm curious in X years if the data will or will not show more pedestrians got hit by cars following this change.

jmugan 2y ago
Could be. Or maybe drivers will get used to people popping up everywhere and will therefore drive with more concentration. I'm not sure, like you say, it will be interesting to see the data.
xutopia 2y ago
There is a question of critical mass that you see in cities that are built around the concept of pedestrians first. Cars go slower, give right of way to pedestrians and generally don't drive as aggressively as we see in most North American cities. In Europe you see plenty of places that are pedestrian first and the car drivers are expected to act differently as a result. Something similar happens in Amsterdam where it is a cyclist first city. Cyclists expect right of way and cars are few and far between. So long as you go about thinking of this in terms of car first as a de facto part of life you won't understand how good it could be with less cars.
dist-epoch 2y ago
If you are at a crosswalk and there is no car in sight, it's dumb to wait for the proper light.
tootie 2y ago
It's more of an acceptance of reality. Pedestrians in NYC cross however they want and police only ever intervene if they're doing something excessively dangerous (which I believe is still illegal) or if they're looking for a excuse to harass someone. It's the latter they are trying to eliminate. This will likely have no impact on road safety and slightly reduce the number of people getting hassled by police. There's also the balance of power that NYC is actually mostly pedestrian. Anything that empowers pedestrians and inhibits cars is a net win for freedom of movement.
gen220 2y ago
Partially it's because this is a false dichotomy. The most efficient and safe system isn't something that erects permanent barriers between pedestrians and cars – because a system like this creates ugly cities and undesirable walking, cycling, and driving conditions – it's something that allows them to coexist safely, generally by making them slower, more visible, and more predictable. I walk/run, drive, and cycle in NYC. In my view, the way NYC works in most intersections and roads is pretty close to maximally efficient. And it generally gets better over time, although it has occasionally gotten worse in the name of safety. The things that make it that way include (1) mostly one-way roads, which makes jaywalking significantly easier and safer (2) mostly single-lane or dual-lane roads (3) well-tuned traffic lights with relatively brief cycles (4) relatively low speed limits that are brutally enforced with speed traps (5) an abundance of red light cameras. The least safe parts of the city are those with more than 2 lanes of traffic, especially if it's bi-directional, and those with really poorly designed cycling infrastructure. My pet peeve roads are the ones that look like this: | sidewalk | cycle lane | parking spots | road | e.g. Grand St in Williamsburg, because this design makes jay-walking extremely dangerous. and it makes cyclists go faster than they otherwise-would, because of the (occasionally-enough-to-be-dangerous false) sense of being insulated from both pedestrians and cars. The other major source of risks, again IME, are cyclists going counter-traffic on one-way roads, and people on electric-assisted bikes in general traveling >20mph.
jedberg 2y ago
I was in Morocco this summer, and for the most part, there is no separation between where motorbikes can ride and pedestrians can walk. It's totally intermixed. At first I was concerned, but then I realized it's actually a lot safe. The motorbikes were cautious because there could be a pedestrian at any turn. And the pedestrians were cautious because there could be a motorbike at any moment. Didn't see a single accident or even any near misses.
altacc 2y ago
Maybe there's some negative American exceptionalism here (the idea that what works in other countries can't work in the US because reasons) but many other countries have no jaywalking laws or much more lax versions (e.g. only applies to motorways) and have much lower pedestrian deaths than the US. Road safety is a cultural thing and relates to how unequal a person's rights are based on their mode of transport. Growing up in the UK, which is car-centric but not as much as the US, jaywalking was an alien term and concept. I remember being confused by the concept when I first visited the US. In the UK there be many crossing with or without lights and regular traffic islands for pedestrians. You get used to crossing the road without signal controlled crossing. And yet the vehicle death rate in the UK is 4 times lower per 100,000 population than the US, 2 times lower per distance driven and the pedestrian death rate is 5 times lower.
- kranke155 2y ago
  Agreed, growing up in Portugal, I had no idea about the concept. Cars even stop for you here outside of crosswalks. When I moved to London UK, I was surprised how wild things were there. Jaywalking is just part of the city. But I love that way. I think the alternative is just fascism. The idea that pedestrians are illegal if they don’t use a crosswalk seems insane to me.
daveoc64 2y ago
>The dichotomy is pretty interesting to me, given that most major cities in the country have been running high-publicity programs for the last decade to do everything possible to reduce car-related deaths, especially protecting pedestrians and bicyclists. (Cities like NYC and Seattle call it "vision zero", a vision of zero serious traffic injuries/deaths). They work to separate pedestrians and bicyclists from traffic, slow cars down with "traffic calming measures", lower speed limits, and so on. Those sorts of measures have been shown to have negative impact on people's behaviour. If drivers think vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians are segregated away, they'll drive at higher speeds. Pedestrians may start to assume that it's always safe for them to walk in certain places without looking. On the other hand, if you have a system in place where people know that traffic does mix, there will be a lot more caution from all road users.
cryptonector 2y ago
In NYC it's not so much the cars that are the problem as the bikes. I've never ever had a problem jaywalking to my heart's content in NYC, and I've done it lots and lots. But when those bike lanes started sprouting up everywhere suddenly it became much more dangerous because it's very easy to forget about the bikes, especially bikes going the opposite way on one-way streets.

jmugan 2y ago

Could be. Or maybe drivers will get used to people popping up everywhere and will therefore drive with more concentration. I'm not sure, like you say, it will be interesting to see the data.

xutopia 2y ago

There is a question of critical mass that you see in cities that are built around the concept of pedestrians first. Cars go slower, give right of way to pedestrians and generally don't drive as aggressively as we see in most North American cities. In Europe you see plenty of places that are pedestrian first and the car drivers are expected to act differently as a result. Something similar happens in Amsterdam where it is a cyclist first city. Cyclists expect right of way and cars are few and far between. So long as you go about thinking of this in terms of car first as a de facto part of life you won't understand how good it could be with less cars.

dist-epoch 2y ago

If you are at a crosswalk and there is no car in sight, it's dumb to wait for the proper light.

tootie 2y ago

It's more of an acceptance of reality. Pedestrians in NYC cross however they want and police only ever intervene if they're doing something excessively dangerous (which I believe is still illegal) or if they're looking for a excuse to harass someone. It's the latter they are trying to eliminate. This will likely have no impact on road safety and slightly reduce the number of people getting hassled by police. There's also the balance of power that NYC is actually mostly pedestrian. Anything that empowers pedestrians and inhibits cars is a net win for freedom of movement.

gen220 2y ago

Partially it's because this is a false dichotomy. The most efficient and safe system isn't something that erects permanent barriers between pedestrians and cars – because a system like this creates ugly cities and undesirable walking, cycling, and driving conditions – it's something that allows them to coexist safely, generally by making them slower, more visible, and more predictable. I walk/run, drive, and cycle in NYC. In my view, the way NYC works in most intersections and roads is pretty close to maximally efficient. And it generally gets better over time, although it has occasionally gotten worse in the name of safety. The things that make it that way include (1) mostly one-way roads, which makes jaywalking significantly easier and safer (2) mostly single-lane or dual-lane roads (3) well-tuned traffic lights with relatively brief cycles (4) relatively low speed limits that are brutally enforced with speed traps (5) an abundance of red light cameras. The least safe parts of the city are those with more than 2 lanes of traffic, especially if it's bi-directional, and those with really poorly designed cycling infrastructure. My pet peeve roads are the ones that look like this: | sidewalk | cycle lane | parking spots | road | e.g. Grand St in Williamsburg, because this design makes jay-walking extremely dangerous. and it makes cyclists go faster than they otherwise-would, because of the (occasionally-enough-to-be-dangerous false) sense of being insulated from both pedestrians and cars. The other major source of risks, again IME, are cyclists going counter-traffic on one-way roads, and people on electric-assisted bikes in general traveling >20mph.

jedberg 2y ago

I was in Morocco this summer, and for the most part, there is no separation between where motorbikes can ride and pedestrians can walk. It's totally intermixed. At first I was concerned, but then I realized it's actually a lot safe. The motorbikes were cautious because there could be a pedestrian at any turn. And the pedestrians were cautious because there could be a motorbike at any moment. Didn't see a single accident or even any near misses.

altacc 2y ago

Maybe there's some negative American exceptionalism here (the idea that what works in other countries can't work in the US because reasons) but many other countries have no jaywalking laws or much more lax versions (e.g. only applies to motorways) and have much lower pedestrian deaths than the US. Road safety is a cultural thing and relates to how unequal a person's rights are based on their mode of transport. Growing up in the UK, which is car-centric but not as much as the US, jaywalking was an alien term and concept. I remember being confused by the concept when I first visited the US. In the UK there be many crossing with or without lights and regular traffic islands for pedestrians. You get used to crossing the road without signal controlled crossing. And yet the vehicle death rate in the UK is 4 times lower per 100,000 population than the US, 2 times lower per distance driven and the pedestrian death rate is 5 times lower.

kranke155 2y ago
Agreed, growing up in Portugal, I had no idea about the concept. Cars even stop for you here outside of crosswalks. When I moved to London UK, I was surprised how wild things were there. Jaywalking is just part of the city. But I love that way. I think the alternative is just fascism. The idea that pedestrians are illegal if they don’t use a crosswalk seems insane to me.

daveoc64 2y ago

>The dichotomy is pretty interesting to me, given that most major cities in the country have been running high-publicity programs for the last decade to do everything possible to reduce car-related deaths, especially protecting pedestrians and bicyclists. (Cities like NYC and Seattle call it "vision zero", a vision of zero serious traffic injuries/deaths). They work to separate pedestrians and bicyclists from traffic, slow cars down with "traffic calming measures", lower speed limits, and so on. Those sorts of measures have been shown to have negative impact on people's behaviour. If drivers think vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians are segregated away, they'll drive at higher speeds. Pedestrians may start to assume that it's always safe for them to walk in certain places without looking. On the other hand, if you have a system in place where people know that traffic does mix, there will be a lot more caution from all road users.

cryptonector 2y ago

In NYC it's not so much the cars that are the problem as the bikes. I've never ever had a problem jaywalking to my heart's content in NYC, and I've done it lots and lots. But when those bike lanes started sprouting up everywhere suddenly it became much more dangerous because it's very easy to forget about the bikes, especially bikes going the opposite way on one-way streets.