Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jaywalking legalized in New York City

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 370 posts

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#31

Post by leptons »

olliej wrote: post #2

Not growing up in america I never understood what jaywalking was - I legit assumed it was a pedestrian crossing a freeway because nothing else made sense. Growing up I was taught explicitly to do what in the US was a crime: crossing between intersections because it is vastly safer than crossing at intersections. Obviously, there's a more complex issue with jaywalking where it is a crime that is trivially easy to enfo…

In most places, jaywalking typically means crossing outside of a crosswalk while being within a short distance of a crosswalk. It's more dangerous for pedestrians near crosswalks, cars are turning and have limited visibility, so using the crosswalk (when crossing is allowed, if there's a crossing indicator) is the rule.

If you are a certain distance away from a crosswalk, you are allowed to cross the road but must yield to oncoming cars.

It's really pretty simple and common-sense. Of course there are differences in local rules, but this is the way it usually works.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#32

Post by julian_t »

IshKebab wrote: post #24
vasco wrote: post #3

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.

Which countries obey crossing lights as strictly as you describe? I've been to lots of European countries and none were like that. Not in the way that the US is.

I'm currently in Tokyo and it is the norm to wait for the green man, even if it is a two-lane road there isn't a car in sight. I can understand waiting at one of the mega intersections, where you can barely make out the pedestrians on the other side - definitely waiting for permission to cross there.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#33

Post by tlonny »

94b45eb4 wrote: post #25

So if you are waiting at an intersection pedestrian crossings and getting impatient you can just move over a bit and cross anyway?

You can cross wherever and whenever is safe to do so. If traffic conditions don’t facilitate this, pedestrian crossings provide guaranteed crossing points where pedestrians have right of way.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#34

Post by carom »

echoangle wrote: post #26
reedf1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Granted you've misinterpreted the posters point - but I will respond to your perception of his point (which I agree with). You could easily imagine a world where pedestrians have the right of way on the streets, and cars "request access to the road" in a similar way that pedestrians do. Actually, if this is not easy for you to imagine - it suggests enormous internal bias.

It would kill the utility of cars though, you could never drive faster than maybe 30 miles per hour or you would constantly run people over. Pedestrians are more nimble than cars, so it kind of makes sense that cars have the right of way. As far as I know, large container ships have right of way over small vessels for the same reason.

>It would kill the utility of cars though, you could never drive faster than maybe 30 miles per hour

That sounds lovely. I would live in that city.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#35

Post by freefaler »

tmnvix wrote: post #23
readthenotes1 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asking pedestrians to cross streets where cars are stopped and they are mostly protected? How is that broken?

Because it's not 'asking' if it's a law. If you're legislating that people can't just walk across a deserted street where it's most convenient then you have a broken law. Legislate against disrupting traffic if you really need to. Not disrupting traffic? What's the problem?

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.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#36

Post by alexanderchr »

94b45eb4 wrote: post #25

So if you are waiting at an intersection pedestrian crossings and getting impatient you can just move over a bit and cross anyway?

From the article ”It also allows for crossing against traffic signals and specifically states that doing so is no longer a violation of the city’s administrative code.”

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#37

Post by Grimbat »

timomaxgalvin wrote: post #14
vasco wrote: post #3

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.

The distinction is about pedestrians being forced to use crossings. In the UK you can use them, but you can cross where you like if you want to.

Not entirely true. Generally true in England & Wales and Scotland aside from motorways, but in Northern Ireland the cops can fine you for it, although it rarely seems to be enforced.

https://www.psni.police.uk/sites/default/files/2023-01/00008...

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#38

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

carom wrote: post #34
echoangle wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would kill the utility of cars though, you could never drive faster than maybe 30 miles per hour or you would constantly run people over. Pedestrians are more nimble than cars, so it kind of makes sense that cars have the right of way. As far as I know, large container ships have right of way over small vessels for the same reason.

>It would kill the utility of cars though, you could never drive faster than maybe 30 miles per hour That sounds lovely. I would live in that city.

That city is London - well, to an extent. The majority of London roads have a 20mph limit.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#39

Post by 0xEF »

echoangle wrote: post #26
reedf1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Granted you've misinterpreted the posters point - but I will respond to your perception of his point (which I agree with). You could easily imagine a world where pedestrians have the right of way on the streets, and cars "request access to the road" in a similar way that pedestrians do. Actually, if this is not easy for you to imagine - it suggests enormous internal bias.

It would kill the utility of cars though, you could never drive faster than maybe 30 miles per hour or you would constantly run people over. Pedestrians are more nimble than cars, so it kind of makes sense that cars have the right of way. As far as I know, large container ships have right of way over small vessels for the same reason.

Have you ever driven through a downtown urban area? You can't go more than 30mph anyway, even if you wanted to. There is simply too much connections, turns, etc.

And yet, I still disagree that pedestrians should be able to just enter the road willy-nilly. Crosswalks are there for safety because it sets the same expectations for everyone using the road, drivers included, thus creating order and flow that is generally reliable.

This is also the same problem I have with cyclists that think they should be allowed to ride against traffic, ignore stop signs, etc. By not moving with the expected flow, they endanger themselves and creat problems. When I am making a right hand turn, for example, and a cyclist has decided to ride against traffic, I am not compelled to look to my right as I am timing my turn because I am not expecting traffic to be there since a right turn has you crossing zero lanes of traffic and merging with on-coning that would be on your left.

I don't really like our car-centric roads in the US at all, but rules are in place for a reason.

Re: Jaywalking legalized in New York City

#40

Post by tsimionescu »

freefaler wrote: post #35
tmnvix wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not 'asking' if it's a law. If you're legislating that people can't just walk across a deserted street where it's most convenient then you have a broken law. Legislate against disrupting traffic if you really need to. Not disrupting traffic? What's the problem?

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.

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.

Post reply on HN