131–140 of 370 posts
So if you are waiting at an intersection pedestrian crossings and getting impatient you can just move over a bit and cross anyway?
It means pedestrians are always right even when they are wrong. Especially when they are wrong. It means they can do whatever they want whenever they want wherever they want and everybody else on the road is obligated to accomodate them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 spe…
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…
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."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your trying to imply something, but I cannot tell what. Could you possibly make it explicit?
If you allow pedestrians to cross anywhere at any time with right of way, that can work to a certain density. On the other end of the scale, traffic will be at a standstill due to a constant stream of pedestrians. I don't know exactly where on that scale either of those cities is, but the argument that it works in the UK where the density is 5x less seems flawed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jaywalking is any crossing in a wrong / illegal way, not about intersections specifically. Mostly it's about not using crosswalks, so I don't see how it collides with what Europe does. In Europe you also have differences with some countries where crosswalk lights are as a mandate from God and nobody will cross even at 2am deserted road. And then you have countries where the crosswalk lights are mere decorations.
Jaywalking is a pedestrian crossing outside of explicitly designated crossings points. In the US that means by *default( any pedestrian crossing any street at any location other than a pedestrian crossing or an intersection, regardless of distance to such a point. There is a massive difference between "country culturally tends towards using designated crossing points" and "it's a criminal offense to not use them". I'…
It is punishable with a 4€ fixed fine. I don't know of any lesser punishable crime and it is rarely enforced in practice despite jaywalking being common. But it is still a crime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's literally how it works in the UK
Population density of London: 15,000 per square mile Population density of Manhattan: 78,000 per square mile (according to wikipedia on both)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 spe…
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…
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).
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,…
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,…
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.
First, let's not forget that jaywalking is one of those "crimes" that is used as a pretense by police to harass people, usually young people and people of color. Second, as a veteran jaywalker, my rule of thumb is that if a car has to hit their breaks even a little, or otherwise alter their trajectory, you're doing it wrong. The goal should be smooth movement for all. Third, just because someone else is jaywalking do…
"Walking while black"
Recently saw a courtroom video where a black man was being charged with marijuana possession. The reason for the initial stop was jaywalking, but the cop didn't even ticket him for the jaywalking, just used it as a justification for performing a search.
Judge threw the case out. Scolded the cop for clearly just wanting a reason to search a black man, evidenced by the lack of a ticket for the jaywalking.
And of course, it's just wild to me that in some states, you can get thrown in jail for YEARS for simple possession of a single nugget of marijuana, while in Oregon, my grocery store receipts literally have ads for marijuana dispensaries on the back.
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,…