81–90 of 370 posts
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.
That's literally how it works in the UK
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asking pedestrians to cross streets where cars are stopped and they are mostly protected? How is that broken?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Population density of London: 15,000 per square mile Population density of Manhattan: 78,000 per square mile (according to wikipedia on both)
I think your trying to imply something, but I cannot tell what. Could you possibly make it explicit?
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)
The City of Westminster has a day-time population of around 1 million people, and its area is around 8 sq miles; (doing casual searching).
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.
We don't need to guess at probabilities. We can look at the data. Aactual cities where jaywalking isn't a crime; they do not set the speed limit at 10, and it all seems to work fine.
But just because jaywalking isn’t a crime doesn’t mean pedestrians have right of way. Is that the case anywhere? I thought that was the proposal, which is much different than allowing people to cross everywhere, after looking out that there’s no car coming. reedf1 wrote: > 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 th…
https://www.thewindscreenco.co.uk/help-advice/highway-code-2...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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. Except you may have just passed a cyclist without leaving enough time to turn because you barely registered their presence and are now going to cut them off. Or you stopped at an intersection and…
I should clarify that when dedicated bike lanes are present, I absolutely look for cyclists in both directions. Again, setting expectations is important. It's also why we use turn signals. My reference to cyclists goinh the wrong way takes place in the suburbs where I have lived most, and bikes are not exactly common. On a four lane highway with a speed limit of 55mph, multiple driveways, etc (Not Just Bikes calls th…
The vast majority of drivers are continuously violating laws. On top of the continuous speeding violation (+10-15 is surely ok?) add the occasional roll through, failures to yield, failure to use a turn signal, speeding in school zones, passing without sufficient distance, running reds, double parking, etc and the police pretty much always can pull over any given automobile driver. This fact is well known: the default state of a driver is one of rule breaking.
Primary attribution fallacy is the contextualization of our own errors or rule violations while attributing those of strangers to character flaws (immature, defiant). You pass drivers doing all of the above things every day, but it is the cyclists you notice because they are different and the other drivers are surely doing the same as you. But you understand the context in which you violate laws or make mistakes.
It is not that hard to understand that everyone is human.
Let's not forget that jaywalking was essentially created by the automotive industry and its lobbyists, to make life more convenient for drivers. It started in car-heavy places like California, and eventually became a law virtually everywhere in the US, but was never really enforced in New York City, where most people walk or take public transit, rather than drive. If, like most New Yorkers, you walk several kilometer…
As a general rule, I watch the cars and not the traffic lights. Mostly because many motorists (and NYC buses are the worst!) often don't pay attention to pedestrians, intersections or traffic lights. In fact, I'm more careful when walking through an intersection than in the middle of the street.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think "no jaywalking because safety" would make more sense if crosswalks were totally safe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in NY, can't traffic move over crosswalks even against traffic lights, in some circumstances? I always find that confusing-and frightening!
In certain parts of the USA, cars are allowed to turn right from the first lane even on a red light, unless there is some explicit sign prohibiting it in that intersection.