Live data from Hacker News

Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

virginiamercury.com

291–300 of 459 posts

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#291

This is entirely about the same politics of safety we're seeing play out with the pandemic. If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians. As Americans our priority has been individual convenience, over collective safety of our neighbors. Its shifting slowly, but for the most part this is a battle we're grappling with as a society on multiple fronts right now.

> If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians

I'm not too well-versed on the various American speed limits. But I can tell you the Danish ones. Here there's no concept of "jaywalking". There's simply "crossing the street", and that's functionally never illegal.

We drive 50 kph in cities, towns, and villages. That's 31 mph. On wider roads that speed is 60 kph, or 37 mph. Those are still legal to cross as you please as a pedestrian.

Our normal country roads are driven at 80 kph, or 50 mph. These have a single lane in each direction and shared with pedestrians, bicycles, scooters, and every other road-going transportation method.

The next levels of road speeds (90 kph [55 mph], 110 kph [68 mph], and 130 kph [80 mph]) are only found on roads that don't connect directly to anything used by pedestrians. Specifically, on two-lane expressways and motorways. These can only be used by cars and motorcycles.

As I said initially, I'm not too well versed in US speed limits, but it's my understanding that these speeds at least match, if not are higher, than those. In other words, there is no inherent need to slow cars down in the US to make "jaywalking" legal.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#292

Fucking stupid. I used to live in a college town where no one obeyed traffic laws. I can't tell you how many car on car, car in bike, car on people accidents were caused by dumbasses walking into open traffic.

If bike and pedestrian traffic is that dense, they should lower speed limits and install speed bumps.

There are. Pedestrians don't care and will literately walk into open traffic. I've seen the same thing in every major city.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#293

I cannot get to the site (blocked for EU) but the rule in France is two way. The driver must not enforce its priority when there is someone crossing the street at a place they should not. The price is high. A pedestrian can cross anywhere but has priority only on a zebra crossing. They are however expected to use a zebra crossing if there is one less 50 m away. It may cost you 11€ if you do not. The reality is of cou…

> driver must not enforce its priority... pedestrian can cross anywhere but has priority only on a zebra crossing

If drivers have priority ("right of way" in USA) but cannot enforce it, then they don't really have it, do they?

It's easier to just say pedestrians always have right of way.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#294
Another related law is the requirement for cyclists to keep as far right as practicable regardless of whether or not there are marked lanes for traffic [1].

Most states have a law that requires vehicles moving at less than the normal speed of traffic to use the right most lane that serves their destination. But the law that specifically applies to cyclists states that they have to keep as far right as practicable within the right most lane itself (with some exceptions).

For instance, here's the law [2] in New York:

>> Upon all roadways, any bicycle or in-line skate shall be driven either on a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane or, if a usable bicycle or in-line skate lane has not been provided, near the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway or upon a usable right-hand shoulder in such a manner as to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic

They state the reason is to prevent undue interference with the flow of traffic. They don't mention anything about cyclist safety.

[1] https://iamtraffic.org/equality/the-marginalization-of-bicyc...

[2] https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/VAT/1234

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#295
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians. There is a middle ground: the law could say that, while you can't get a ticket just for crossing a street outside the marked crosswalks, if you do cross that way and get hit by a car, the presumption is that you were at fault--whereas, if you get hit by a car while you are in the marked crosswalks, the presumption is…

> if you do cross that way and get hit by a car, the presumption is that you were at fault--whereas, if you get hit by a car while you are in the marked crosswalks, the presumption is that the driver of the car was at fault I'd be wary of this. A pedestrian's position in the street is hard to prove (and defend) when they're hit by a vehicle. Say someone gets hit and is thrown twenty feet when crossing at an unmarked…

[deleted]

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#296
post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I disagree there's an anti car segment here (I'm personally very anti car) but a car can be (can not necessarily is) an effective murder machine. What other pieces of personal property does Western society openly embrace everyone owning but that can be used to murder people? I'm not saying that's the intent but when people call them murder machine the point they're raising (hyperbolically) is that cars and d…

> What other pieces of personal property does Western society openly embrace everyone owning but that can be used to murder people? Knives. Belts. Ropes. Electrical cords. Hammers. Chairs. Frying pans. Scissors. Etc., Etc., Etc., as nauseum, ad infinitum.

Indeed, more murders are committed in the US with hands, fists, and feet than rifles.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#297
post #52

My first year of college, I was cited for jaywalking. I was walking across a barren street in our small college town on my way to class, and there was a town cop standing against a wall of a nearby building waiting for an easy catch. I had fully crossed the street and was walking to a nearby building when I heard someone yell "Hey" behind me. I contemplated not even turning around, because I wanted to get to class on…

I got a ticket for jaywalking when I lived in downtown Washington, DC about 15 years ago. The officer asked to see my license (what if I hadn't had one?) and wrote a ticket, but as a warning with no fine. Said it was the first sunny day of the Spring and the city had him out to try to cut down on tourists etc. wandering around and possibly getting hit by cars.

The cops love issuing jaywalking tickets in DC, it's a tradition. Quick story: about 10 years ago I walked over to the Library of Congress with two friends from Virginia, and we walked across the street in the middle of the block. There was an officer way down on the corner and he screamed at us "HEY! No jaywalking!" and we hustled across as quickly as we could and went inside the library, looking at each other with puzzled glances. It never occurred to any of us that we simply couldn't walk across the street, and all of us are from the northeast US corridor. I'm a US citizen and that was the first time and the last time that anyone has scolded me for jaywalking (just so the EU people reading this understand: it's not usually enforced here except in the biggest cities).

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is jaywalking illegal all the time? Here it's only illegal if there's a crossing less than 50 m away.

> small college town That's the key phrase. Police in small towns of America have nothing better to do than setup ways of levying fines against outsiders so they can afford to upgrade their cruisers to the latest dodge chargers or outfit everyone with DOD hand-me-down weaponry.

I've never seen it happen in a college town. See comment above. Usually the only place jaywalking in enforced is in the really big cities, especially Washington, DC.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#299
post #241

Just want to point out how special interests can actually pretty insidiously change your viewpoint by making you think "that's the way things have always been". It was relatively recently that I discovered that jaywalking, as a crime, was a distinctly American phenomenon, when in an HN discussion someone mentioned that British folk think the crime of jaywalking is insane (in the UK you can cross pretty much wherever…

When an American friend explained it to me at uni I honestly thought they were trying to trick. It's just such an absurd concept, like how does anyone walk anywhere? Then I realised they don't.

I've been to business hotels in the USA in my travels that literally don't have pedestrian access. There's a road without a pedestrian sidewalk up to the front of the hotel, and that's it. You CANNOT get in or out without a car. It is crazy.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#300

I cannot get to the site (blocked for EU) but the rule in France is two way. The driver must not enforce its priority when there is someone crossing the street at a place they should not. The price is high. A pedestrian can cross anywhere but has priority only on a zebra crossing. They are however expected to use a zebra crossing if there is one less 50 m away. It may cost you 11€ if you do not. The reality is of cou…

Exactly. And typically, the forensics would try to determine if a driver that hit a pedestrian in a situation where it could have been avoided at least tried to brake. If not, the driver would typically be charged for negligence and it would launch an investigation for murder.

> and it would launch an investigation for murder

manslaughter, I assume?

Post reply on HN