10 ms·

Jaywalking legalized in New York City

296 points by Thomashuet 2y ago

glr02 2y ago
I will never forget the day I was screamed off by a cab driver near Central Park for doing it. Didn't even know it was a thing, as a foreigner.
calini 2y ago
Eyyy, I’m walkin’ ‘ere
2024user 2y ago
Surprisingly the word jaywalking comes from jay-driving which was coined to describe drivers driving on the wrong side of the road. Initially the term jaywalking really only applied to poor etiquette when walking on the sidewalk.
olliej 2y ago
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 enforce in a discriminatory manner, and it creates endless opportunities for pretextual searches once NY's clearly unconstitutional stop-and-frisk laws were overturned.
- Dilettante_ 2y ago
  Do you not have pedestrian crossings/stoplights for pedestrians in your country?
  - foo42 2y ago
    In the UK we have various types of pedestrian crossing, but they're an optional convenience. You can use them, or you can find a safe place and time to cross yourself.
    - fire_lake 2y ago
      And if no one uses them, they weren’t well designed to start with.
      - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
        I guess the jaywalking law is partly to avoid disrupting traffic, but the most efficient cross is the one when no traffic is present, and that's more likely in the middle of the road than at an intersection.
        fire_lake 2y ago
        Yep - prioritisation of motorists is baked in. This makes sense for freeways but in cities this should be flipped.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    In the UK, not at every intersection, by any means. In fact, it's probably a minority in many places. We're taught how to cross in the middle of the road.
  - olliej 2y ago
    Of course, the question is "is it a crime to cross a road outside of those designated points" in america the answer is often "yes". Which means the only legal place to cross a road is an intersection, which is significantly less safe for pedestrians. Next time you're going for a walk, try to estimate what % of intersections or crossing points are protected (stop signs for all roads, traffic lights, or barriers). Similarly, when you're out driving try and see how much you slow down for each intersection (ie non-jaywalking crossing points) - this is not a judgement on driving style this is just about working out relative safety. Any unprotected intersection you go through without significantly slowing down (think dropping to parking lot speed) for is a location where crossing away from the intersection is safer. Safety for pedestrians crossing a road is primarily from collision avoidance - as I said in another comment the amount of damage from a pedestrian vs vehicle collision high at even "low" car speeds.
- vasco 2y ago
  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.
  - e1g 2y ago
    I had an identity crisis in Germany when, at 2am on a deserted road, a group of hooligan-looking teenage boys told me off for crossing on red.
    - pm3003 2y ago
      Something like that happened to me on my first day as an adult in Germany. Wide road, Sunday afternoon, visibility over 1km in both directions, not a car in sight. I was accompanied by a girl from the place where I was to work. I had just met her and she was showing me to the nearby convenience store. She suddenly started screaming when I crossed the street while the pedestrian light was red. I didn't get what the problem was so I crossed back, to much drama. She (or her boyfriend) later told me there was a long-running campaign during the 90s aiming to curb pedestrian death, that featured vivid TV spots showing kids die because they routinely saw adults jaywalking and imitated them. So jaywalking = killing children. Also German children of all ages are encouraged to say to jaywalkers "You're not a good example for the children.". It happened to me more than once.
      - bell-cot 2y ago
        When there might plausibly be little kids watching, I make sure I'm very obvious about checking for oncoming traffic. Repeatedly. Before & during crossing the road. Where onlooking kiddies seem implausible, I pretty much do the same thing. Far better to be an obvious chicken than dead right.
      - macintux 2y ago
        I was observing a parade once and stepped into the stopped traffic to talk to a driver about his vehicle. I felt terrible later when I realized I had set a dangerous example for all of the kids around.
- leptons 2y ago
  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.
  - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
    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!
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      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.
      - fragmede 2y ago
        Unless expressly prohibited, eg by said sign, right-turn-on-red defaults to being legal across vthe US.
        kube-system 2y ago
        Not entirely. Right-on-red is by default illegal in NYC, and will be soon in DC and Atlanta. Also a good number of states prohibit right-on-red by default when the red light is in the shape of an arrow.
        ssl-3 2y ago
        Unless I'm missing something: Defining traffic laws is something that the states do on their own, and these aren't things that the federal government generally gets involved with. Thus, there are 50 different sets of these laws, plus DC. Any similarities between them may be nothing more than incidental.
- dominicrose 2y ago
  > crossing between intersections because it is vastly safer than crossing at intersections It's true in most city streets because even if cars drive faster outside of intersections, if we walk fast and have good visibility then it's not an issue. There are very busy roundabouts with crosswalks right next to them. As a driver having to stop means being scared for your car's behind.
  - olliej 2y ago
    The speed of vehicles is not super relevant in the context of the intrinsic safety for a pedestrian crossing the road. Assuming reasonable amounts of visibility. The safest way for a pedestrian to cross a road is a location where there is the greatest opportunity to avoid a collision at any speed. That means minimizing number of directions you need to watch for traffic, and maximizing the likelihood of being in the line of sight of drivers. That means you want to cross away from intersections. Crossing between intersections means that as a pedestrian you only have to be concerned about traffic from two (or even just one) directions, and for oncoming traffic you will definitionally be in the direction the drivers are facing. Crossing at intersections means as a pedestrian you are having to watch for traffic from more directions, including directly behind you, and traffic approaching the intersection has drivers who are necessarily going to be having to look at places other than directly in front of them in the case of traffic coming towards you on the street you are crossing, and traffic coming from the other streets may not by physically able to see you on the intersecting cross street (from their PoV) prior to actually reaching the intersection. Hence crossing between intersections is safer because it reduces the likelihood of any collision, as it's easier for everyone involved to be aware of everyone else. Speed of a pedestrian vs vehicle collision is much less of a safety factor than just not having the collision at all, because the difference in speed between "walk away" and "going to hospital" is very small - well within normal intersection speeds. At higher speeds of course the likelihood of going to the morgue skyrockets, but when considering the safety of "low speed" collisions it's important to consider a "low speed" collision that is minor for an adult is still easily able to kill a child, and the speed _required_ to kill is not that high as demonstrated by multiple pedestrian vs cyclist collisions that have killed people (I think generally older people or just really bad luck but its just important to recognize that the "serious damage to soft and squishy people" is way lower than people think).
- throwaway313373 2y ago
  > it is vastly safer than crossing at intersections Why is it safer?
  - macintux 2y ago
    Other comments have pointed out that intersections are difficult to cross safely because cars are coming from multiple directions, often in non-obvious ways. Between the intersections you only have two directions to worry about.
    - throwaway313373 2y ago
      Yes, but at intersections drivers are forced to slow down and look for traffic and maybe prepare to make a turn, so you can expect them to move slower and have more situational awareness. Am I wrong?
      - Schiendelman 2y ago
        You should be right! But you are misidentifying the problem. The problem here is not the norm, it's the exceptions. Some drivers don't slow down or pay attention. Those are the ones that cause all the risk. While normal drivers behave better at intersections, a pedestrian can't trust that every driver will do that. In a mid block crossing, you don't have to rely on drivers behaving a certain way, so the predictability is increased and the overall result is safer.
        macintux 2y ago
        I witnessed a driver make an aggressive left turn as soon as a light turned green, to beat the first car going the other way. Unfortunately that aggressive left turn ended abruptly when they hit a pedestrian crossing the street on that same green light. Thankfully the pedestrian seemed mostly shaken up, but I have to imagine there were long-term consequences of that.
zjp 2y ago
I kind of wonder now whether that was the most broken law in history.
- readthenotes1 2y ago
  Asking pedestrians to cross streets where cars are stopped and they are mostly protected? How is that broken?
  - badgersnake 2y ago
    I’m guessing they meant most frequently broken. But as someone who lives in a country that has never had that law, I’m pretty sure it’s unnecessary.
    - readthenotes1 2y ago
      Thanks - I did not actually consider that interpretation!
  - hapidjus 2y ago
    Broken as in people not respecting it I assume.
  - grujicd 2y ago
    Not broken in terms of design and intent, but broken by people all the time. As in "I broke the law, and the law won"
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    Because the pedestrians and roads were there before cars. Criminalizing the behavior was regulatory capture by Big Auto. It being enforced by police from Connecticut who treat NYC’s minorities like a VR simulation was broken. Strong recommendations and pointing out the loss in civil suits would have always been totally fine.
  - zjp 2y ago
    Other posters are right, I meant 'most frequently broken'.
94b45eb4 2y ago
So if you are waiting at an intersection pedestrian crossings and getting impatient you can just move over a bit and cross anyway?
- tlonny 2y ago
  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.
- alexanderchr 2y ago
  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.”
- hnbad 2y ago
  Did you read the article? Pedestrians can always cross but they then don't have the right of way and have to yield to traffic. Basically everyone can keep doing what they've been doing all along but police can no longer arrest them for it through selective enforcement.
  - nobody9999 2y ago
    >Did you read the article? Pedestrians can always cross but they then don't have the right of way and have to yield to traffic. Basically everyone can keep doing what they've been doing all along but police can no longer arrest them for it through selective enforcement. As a lifelong New Yorker, I can tell you that arrest is never an option for any violation of the city's administrative code. Rather it's a fine. And as you alluded to, black and brown people were the vast majority of those fined under the jaywalking regulation. As a cis white guy, I didn't even know that jaywalking was 'illegal' in NYC until folks started talking about 'legalizing' it a few years ago. As I mentioned, I've lived here pretty much all my life and have 'jaywalked' in front of police hundreds if not thousands of times and none have ever even looked at me funny. So yes, this is a very good thing. Just one very, very small step on the road to 'a more perfect union', IMHO.
moomin 2y ago
[flagged]
AStonesThrow 2y ago
I grew up in Southern California. My parents strictly observed traffic laws, and riding in the car with them, I would often hear their disapproving gossip about pedestrians' faux pas, including wearing black at night. In high school, a classmate tried to help me loosen up a bit, and he'd encourage our group to cross a busy stroad. "They'll stop! They'll stop for you!" he assured me. He was right... I visited Catalonia awhile ago. My companion was a native there and helped me understand local customs. I was able to drive her car a little bit, LHD, although the roundabouts tended to bewilder me. On foot, we'd approach a busy street and she encouraged me to just cross. She showed me how to hold out a hand as a signal of my intent. Motorists would slow and yield. She was also right. I heard that the walk signal buttons are called "beg buttons", as in "pedestrians beg to enter the street". I use them scrupulously. My justification is that a theoretical personal injury lawsuit is easier to litigate, if I can prove I was doing everything right.
- maxwellg 2y ago
  Does anyone know if beg button presses get tracked? I often wonder if pressing it increases some great counter in the sky that future city planners can use to design an intersection better.
  - esbranson 2y ago
    Good idea.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  > My justification is that a theoretical personal injury lawsuit is easier to litigate, if I can prove I was doing everything right. I guess the way I see it is if you want your grave stone to read "Here lies AStonesThrow. He had the right of way!" then by all means, step out into traffic--they'll always stop for you.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  Sounds like survivorship bias to me. A substantial fraction of drivers are generally not looking forward or paying attention at any given time... you're just rolling the dice by assuming they will see you and stop.
gxonatano 2y ago
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 kilometers a day, through dozens of intersections, it's ludicrous to suggest that you should only walk at crosswalks, and only when the walk sign is lit. New Yorkers don't have a concept of "jaywalking"; it's just "walking."
- pjmlp 2y ago
  To join the voice to the other non-US folks, in the Southern Europe no one cares, we just cross the road regardless the colour. Usually it is only respected in high traffic roads, unless one wants to play frogger in real life. And while there are technically fines, like 10 €, in practice the police has more usefull things to worry about and unless you get an officer having a bad day and someone has to pay for it, they won't care.
- nobody9999 2y ago
  >New Yorkers don't have a concept of "jaywalking"; it's just "walking." 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.
  - metabagel 2y ago
    Yes, crossing at intersections is much more complex, with traffic typically coming from many more directions than away from intersections.
    - wahern 2y ago
      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 speaking. People are constantly milling around on the sidewalk, standing on curbs, doing all manner of crazy things, but not actually crossing. From a driver's perspective, a pedestrian about to cross the street typically looks indistinguishable from a pedestrian just doing the normal insane stuff pedestrians do. Then in a split second they go from normal pedestrian to crossing pedestrian, which is often much too late for a driver to respond, assuming they even noticed, unless it's at an expected crossing. Yes, intersections feel dangerous and risky. But that's precisely why they're safer--pedestrians and drivers alike feel the anxiety, whereas when jaywalking both the pedestrian and car often don't sense any risk at all.
bragr 2y ago
Since they made this change in California last year, I cross where ever when it is safe and convenient. I'm surprised how big of difference it made to the convenience and speed of walking somewhere. No more waiting for 2 different lights just to get to the opposite corner.
- Gud 2y ago
  As a veteran jaywalker, let me propose that you avoid crossing at junctions, where crossings are usually located, ideally cross at one leg, especially good if it’s a one way street. Less traffic, fewer inputs/outputs to keep under observations.
  - prophesi 2y ago
    Where I live, just about all of the downtown streets are one-ways and it does wonders for getting around both on foot and in an automobile. Though the latter will be more punishing if you don't know the lay of the land, and there will be congestion near on-ramps during rush hour.
    - WorldMaker 2y ago
      In my experience, some types of one-way streets are some of the least trustworthy for crossing on foot because drivers treat them as race courses or interstates with speed limits (and sometimes worse, traffic lights) as barely a suggestion. It's interesting how much excitement as a pedestrian I find at the elimination of one-way streets and replacement with calmer two-way street "diet" patterns. (Street "diets" reduce lanes, add more dedicated turn lanes, smarter medians and parking.)
- metabagel 2y ago
  I had to look this up. "Safe jaywalking" is legal in California, but if you risk a collision, you can be cited. ---------- VC 21955. (a) Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk. (b) (1) A peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation of subdivision (a) unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power. (2) This subdivision does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety. (3) This subdivision does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the roadway.
potato3732842 2y ago
It was de-facto legal to begin with. The only people who were ever hurt by this law were the people who insisted on abiding by the law beyond the point of absurdity. I appreciate that this is one less crime the average person commits every day that a capricious enforcer can make a big deal of but the flip side is that this reduces the competitive advantage of not being law abiding to the point of absurdity and your own detriment.
- jplrssn 2y ago
  Seems to me like greater damage was being done to the people getting stopped and searched on the pretext of jaywalking. From the article: > The Legal Aid Society called the legislation long overdue. The non-profit organization, which provides free legal representation to New Yorkers who cannot afford a lawyer, said police for decades have used the violation as a pretext to stop, question and frisk residents – especially those of color.
standardUser 2y ago
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 does not mean you should follow them! Always asses your own path because someone else may be timing it differently.
- ferrous69 2y ago
  > if a car has to hit their breaks even a little, or otherwise alter their trajectory, you're doing it wrong. this is basically NYC law already, including pedestrian interactions
  - havblue 2y ago
    One time when I jaywalked in NYC I could have sworn that a cab, who was a half block away, accelerated when he saw me crossing the street. My impression has always been that people hate having their time wasted.
    - matheusmoreira 2y ago
      > My impression has always been that people hate having their time wasted. They do. This is why pedestrians jaywalk to begin with. Can't be bothered to have their time wasted by the law.
- jowdones 2y ago
  There's also waiting 1-2 minutes for green light on a pedestrian semaphore while the street is entirely empty of cars. If no cops are in sight I definitely cross the street. Usually one or two people get encouraged and also cross but there's always the sticklers who would wait the end of the world if not given the green light.
  - 2y ago
thegrim33 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 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
barrenko 2y ago
Not policing is the latest SF export coming worldwide.
jmugan 2y ago
I remember visiting California in the 1990s and was amazed to see my California friends waiting patiently at the light, looking at me like I was uncivilized because I just crossed the street whenever it was safe.
- macintux 2y ago
  When I was visiting Finland in 1990, my friend told me the police were so bored there that jaywalking was very likely to result in a ticket.
- lysace 2y ago
  Current day Sweden: People cross tend to cross the street whenever it feels safe, unless there's some mom/dad with young kids in tow nearby. Then it's polite to wait for the light to turn green. We often have very little traffic on our streets though, and they are often not very wide. It's technically illegal to jaywalk but not punishable unless you manage to cause a traffic accident, somehow. I like these pragmatic laws.
  - Schiendelman 2y ago
    In the United States, having laws like that results in discriminatory policing (see many threads here). Probably less than an issue in a country that doesn't have such issues with race.
    - lysace 2y ago
      > It's technically illegal to jaywalk but not punishable unless you manage to cause a traffic accident, somehow. I like these pragmatic laws. Has this been tested?
      - Schiendelman 2y ago
        You may be responding to the wrong comment.
jedberg 2y ago
As far as I know, NYC is unique in that pedestrians do not have the right of way. Everywhere else you must legally stop for a pedestrian but in NYC you don't. (edit, since people seem confused: This doesn't mean you can run them over. It just means you don't have to stop if you are going to block their path. Everywhere else, you have to stop if you are going to block a pedestrian's path, no matter where that pedestrian is.) They have to do this or people would just block all traffic all the time. So this really is just to stop racial profiling. It's really not going to change much in the day to day goings on in NYC.
- gosub100 2y ago
  Nowhere do you have the right to drive into a human being, whether there's laws against jaywalking or not.
  - jedberg 2y ago
    That’s not what that means. It means you’re allowed to block their path. Everywhere else you must stop if you will block the path of a person. In NYC you do not. Of course you can’t run them down.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  The Last Clear Chance Doctrine (in tort law, not criminal law), which is pretty widely accepted, is that regardless of right of way, if you are able to avoid an accident, then you must. Having the right of way matters less than the ability to avoid an accident. If you plow into a pedestrian that you saw from three blocks away, you will absolutely be considered liable civilly since you had a clear chance to avoid a collision. The general rule in almost every vehicle code is that having the right of way does not relieve you of the obligation to do everything reasonable to avoid collisions and injuries.
- 7speter 2y ago
  There was a law passed in NYC a couple of years ago requiring drivers not to enter a crosswalk if pedestrians are in a crosswalk. I have no clue what you're talking about.
sehugg 2y ago
Good riddance. Crosswalks at intersections are nearly obsolete due to the thick A-pillars in modern cars. I would rather have mid-block crosswalks with warning lights and traffic calming devices.
- jklinger410 2y ago
  > Crosswalks at intersections are nearly obsolete due to the thick A-pillars in modern cars. What?
  - consteval 2y ago
    They mean people standing up are invisible to cars in a lot of perspectives.
  - maxwellg 2y ago
    A-pillars are the pillars of a car that support the windshield and the front of the roof. They've gotten bigger in recent years - which reduces the visibility of pedestrians, cyclists, and other cars. Drivers can't see through pillars. Big pillars are safer for the driver in case of a collision or a rollover, but paradoxically also makes that car more dangerous for everyone else on the road. I don't think they make crosswalks obsolete, but crossing the road is more dangerous today than it was 50 years ago. https://chi.streetsblog.org/2022/06/08/pickups-suvs-are-driving-the-pedestrian-and-cyclist-death-epidemic-but-the-tide-may-be-turning#:~:text=The%20design%20of,crossing%20the%20road https://chi.streetsblog.org/2022/06/08/pickups-suvs-are-driv....
    - jklinger410 2y ago
      Yeah okay, I understand pedestrian visibility. But cross walks have nothing to do with that really? Like it's a place where you (usually) stop and when you are stopped, pedestrians can go. I don't see how jaywalking would be better than a dedicated place where pedestrians are expected to be. Thick a-frames or not.
      - 2y ago
giantg2 2y ago
It's hard to tell from the article - is it still a violation if you don't yield to traffic with the right of way? If so, that's how jaywalking works in the vast majority of places. If you cross and imped the flow of traffic with the right of way, you are jaywalking and will be ticketed for it. This is just standard in most places.
leecarraher 2y ago
is there a difference, legally, regarding vehicular involuntary manslaughter, between hitting someone who is jaywalking and someone who is not. Example, a person walks into a 65 mph thoroughfare after a curve, since they are no longer in the commencement of a crime, does that make the act tantamount to hitting someone in a crosswalk?
- sokoloff 2y ago
  Pedestrians are barred (by law) from limited access highways in my state (and I think in most states). I can't readily think of any 65 mph highway that isn't limited access.
jklinger410 2y ago
I will still be using the cross walks everywhere I go. Because there's no shortcut across the street that is worth me stopping traffic or getting hit by a car. Jaywalking is for selfish and impatient people who are bad at assessing risk. Unless the street is completely empty, I guess.
- acureau 2y ago
  As someone who has never lived in a city this is strange to me. I live in a relatively dense part of Louisiana, but around here you couldn't walk at all without jaywalking. There aren't even sidewalks in a lot of places. You just walk along the side of the road.
  - jklinger410 2y ago
    Well if the government doesn't provide infrastructure for you to use, then you have no choice but to jaywalk. What I think is crazy is all of the cities that just don't build sidewalks. I understand in certain rural areas, but yeah, many midwestern and southern cities are downright hostile to pedestrians.
mikhailfranco 2y ago
In general, jaywalking should be legal, but ... There is one situation where some kind of enforcement is needed: crowds of people ignoring pedestrian signals, and flooding across crosswalks continuously. Then the traffic never gets a chance to move. Cars cannot safely crawl or nudge their way through the throng of people, who feel the protection of collective security. One might argue that such large crowds are an indication that the road should be fully pedestrianized - perhaps by time-of-day, or only for specific shopping holidays (e.g. Black Friday, Xmas). The alternative for these peaks is often manual control of people and vehicles by a police/traffic/community officer, like a school crossing). Perhaps there could be some critical crossings where there is a legally enforceable 'double-red' pedestrian signal.
mikhailfranco 2y ago
One consequence of legalizing jaywalking, may be increased prevention by fences and barriers. Low railings may be jumped by an agile adult, but they stop children, elderly, wheelchairs, pushchairs, suitcases or people with heavy shopping. Divided highways may get (more) high fences in the central reservation to deter jaywalking - but of course the frustrated locals will eventually cut convenient holes.
waswaswas 2y ago
In Hong Kong and Mainland China, the sidewalks are railed off everywhere except the crosswalk, presumably to prevent the anarchy that occurs when pedestrians are allowed to freely cross the road anywhere. A little jaywalking is good, a lot of jaywalking renders the road unusable to cars. You don't have to be pro-car or anti-transit to recognize the inefficiency in having roads that are uselessly congested with erratic foot traffic.
notpushkin 2y ago
I’m staying in Manila, Philippines for a while now, and road crossing is wild here. You can have a dozen of people staying at a marked uncontrolled crossing for minutes, yielding to traffic. I usually cross anyway whenever there’s an opening in the traffic, and people look at me like I’m an idiot and continue to stay. I have no idea how they manage to cross the roads at all here.
julio1909x 2y ago
[flagged]
more_corn 2y ago
A crime also known as walking while black because it gives police an excuse to stop you and then escalate to any number of unpleasant places.

296 points by Thomashuet 2y ago

I will never forget the day I was screamed off by a cab driver near Central Park for doing it. Didn't even know it was a thing, as a foreigner.

calini 2y ago

Eyyy, I’m walkin’ ‘ere

2024user 2y ago

Surprisingly the word jaywalking comes from jay-driving which was coined to describe drivers driving on the wrong side of the road. Initially the term jaywalking really only applied to poor etiquette when walking on the sidewalk.

olliej 2y ago

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 enforce in a discriminatory manner, and it creates endless opportunities for pretextual searches once NY's clearly unconstitutional stop-and-frisk laws were overturned.

Dilettante_ 2y ago
Do you not have pedestrian crossings/stoplights for pedestrians in your country?
- foo42 2y ago
  In the UK we have various types of pedestrian crossing, but they're an optional convenience. You can use them, or you can find a safe place and time to cross yourself.
  - fire_lake 2y ago
    And if no one uses them, they weren’t well designed to start with.
    - oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
      I guess the jaywalking law is partly to avoid disrupting traffic, but the most efficient cross is the one when no traffic is present, and that's more likely in the middle of the road than at an intersection.
      - fire_lake 2y ago
        Yep - prioritisation of motorists is baked in. This makes sense for freeways but in cities this should be flipped.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  In the UK, not at every intersection, by any means. In fact, it's probably a minority in many places. We're taught how to cross in the middle of the road.
- olliej 2y ago
  Of course, the question is "is it a crime to cross a road outside of those designated points" in america the answer is often "yes". Which means the only legal place to cross a road is an intersection, which is significantly less safe for pedestrians. Next time you're going for a walk, try to estimate what % of intersections or crossing points are protected (stop signs for all roads, traffic lights, or barriers). Similarly, when you're out driving try and see how much you slow down for each intersection (ie non-jaywalking crossing points) - this is not a judgement on driving style this is just about working out relative safety. Any unprotected intersection you go through without significantly slowing down (think dropping to parking lot speed) for is a location where crossing away from the intersection is safer. Safety for pedestrians crossing a road is primarily from collision avoidance - as I said in another comment the amount of damage from a pedestrian vs vehicle collision high at even "low" car speeds.
vasco 2y ago
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.
- e1g 2y ago
  I had an identity crisis in Germany when, at 2am on a deserted road, a group of hooligan-looking teenage boys told me off for crossing on red.
  - pm3003 2y ago
    Something like that happened to me on my first day as an adult in Germany. Wide road, Sunday afternoon, visibility over 1km in both directions, not a car in sight. I was accompanied by a girl from the place where I was to work. I had just met her and she was showing me to the nearby convenience store. She suddenly started screaming when I crossed the street while the pedestrian light was red. I didn't get what the problem was so I crossed back, to much drama. She (or her boyfriend) later told me there was a long-running campaign during the 90s aiming to curb pedestrian death, that featured vivid TV spots showing kids die because they routinely saw adults jaywalking and imitated them. So jaywalking = killing children. Also German children of all ages are encouraged to say to jaywalkers "You're not a good example for the children.". It happened to me more than once.
    - bell-cot 2y ago
      When there might plausibly be little kids watching, I make sure I'm very obvious about checking for oncoming traffic. Repeatedly. Before & during crossing the road. Where onlooking kiddies seem implausible, I pretty much do the same thing. Far better to be an obvious chicken than dead right.
    - macintux 2y ago
      I was observing a parade once and stepped into the stopped traffic to talk to a driver about his vehicle. I felt terrible later when I realized I had set a dangerous example for all of the kids around.
leptons 2y ago
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.
- oneeyedpigeon 2y ago
  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!
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    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.
    - fragmede 2y ago
      Unless expressly prohibited, eg by said sign, right-turn-on-red defaults to being legal across vthe US.
      - kube-system 2y ago
        Not entirely. Right-on-red is by default illegal in NYC, and will be soon in DC and Atlanta. Also a good number of states prohibit right-on-red by default when the red light is in the shape of an arrow.
      - ssl-3 2y ago
        Unless I'm missing something: Defining traffic laws is something that the states do on their own, and these aren't things that the federal government generally gets involved with. Thus, there are 50 different sets of these laws, plus DC. Any similarities between them may be nothing more than incidental.
dominicrose 2y ago
> crossing between intersections because it is vastly safer than crossing at intersections It's true in most city streets because even if cars drive faster outside of intersections, if we walk fast and have good visibility then it's not an issue. There are very busy roundabouts with crosswalks right next to them. As a driver having to stop means being scared for your car's behind.
- olliej 2y ago
  The speed of vehicles is not super relevant in the context of the intrinsic safety for a pedestrian crossing the road. Assuming reasonable amounts of visibility. The safest way for a pedestrian to cross a road is a location where there is the greatest opportunity to avoid a collision at any speed. That means minimizing number of directions you need to watch for traffic, and maximizing the likelihood of being in the line of sight of drivers. That means you want to cross away from intersections. Crossing between intersections means that as a pedestrian you only have to be concerned about traffic from two (or even just one) directions, and for oncoming traffic you will definitionally be in the direction the drivers are facing. Crossing at intersections means as a pedestrian you are having to watch for traffic from more directions, including directly behind you, and traffic approaching the intersection has drivers who are necessarily going to be having to look at places other than directly in front of them in the case of traffic coming towards you on the street you are crossing, and traffic coming from the other streets may not by physically able to see you on the intersecting cross street (from their PoV) prior to actually reaching the intersection. Hence crossing between intersections is safer because it reduces the likelihood of any collision, as it's easier for everyone involved to be aware of everyone else. Speed of a pedestrian vs vehicle collision is much less of a safety factor than just not having the collision at all, because the difference in speed between "walk away" and "going to hospital" is very small - well within normal intersection speeds. At higher speeds of course the likelihood of going to the morgue skyrockets, but when considering the safety of "low speed" collisions it's important to consider a "low speed" collision that is minor for an adult is still easily able to kill a child, and the speed _required_ to kill is not that high as demonstrated by multiple pedestrian vs cyclist collisions that have killed people (I think generally older people or just really bad luck but its just important to recognize that the "serious damage to soft and squishy people" is way lower than people think).
throwaway313373 2y ago
> it is vastly safer than crossing at intersections Why is it safer?
- macintux 2y ago
  Other comments have pointed out that intersections are difficult to cross safely because cars are coming from multiple directions, often in non-obvious ways. Between the intersections you only have two directions to worry about.
  - throwaway313373 2y ago
    Yes, but at intersections drivers are forced to slow down and look for traffic and maybe prepare to make a turn, so you can expect them to move slower and have more situational awareness. Am I wrong?
    - Schiendelman 2y ago
      You should be right! But you are misidentifying the problem. The problem here is not the norm, it's the exceptions. Some drivers don't slow down or pay attention. Those are the ones that cause all the risk. While normal drivers behave better at intersections, a pedestrian can't trust that every driver will do that. In a mid block crossing, you don't have to rely on drivers behaving a certain way, so the predictability is increased and the overall result is safer.
      - macintux 2y ago
        I witnessed a driver make an aggressive left turn as soon as a light turned green, to beat the first car going the other way. Unfortunately that aggressive left turn ended abruptly when they hit a pedestrian crossing the street on that same green light. Thankfully the pedestrian seemed mostly shaken up, but I have to imagine there were long-term consequences of that.

zjp 2y ago

I kind of wonder now whether that was the most broken law in history.

readthenotes1 2y ago
Asking pedestrians to cross streets where cars are stopped and they are mostly protected? How is that broken?
- badgersnake 2y ago
  I’m guessing they meant most frequently broken. But as someone who lives in a country that has never had that law, I’m pretty sure it’s unnecessary.
  - readthenotes1 2y ago
    Thanks - I did not actually consider that interpretation!
- hapidjus 2y ago
  Broken as in people not respecting it I assume.
- grujicd 2y ago
  Not broken in terms of design and intent, but broken by people all the time. As in "I broke the law, and the law won"
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  Because the pedestrians and roads were there before cars. Criminalizing the behavior was regulatory capture by Big Auto. It being enforced by police from Connecticut who treat NYC’s minorities like a VR simulation was broken. Strong recommendations and pointing out the loss in civil suits would have always been totally fine.
- zjp 2y ago
  Other posters are right, I meant 'most frequently broken'.

94b45eb4 2y ago

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

tlonny 2y ago
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.
alexanderchr 2y ago
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.”
hnbad 2y ago
Did you read the article? Pedestrians can always cross but they then don't have the right of way and have to yield to traffic. Basically everyone can keep doing what they've been doing all along but police can no longer arrest them for it through selective enforcement.
- nobody9999 2y ago
  >Did you read the article? Pedestrians can always cross but they then don't have the right of way and have to yield to traffic. Basically everyone can keep doing what they've been doing all along but police can no longer arrest them for it through selective enforcement. As a lifelong New Yorker, I can tell you that arrest is never an option for any violation of the city's administrative code. Rather it's a fine. And as you alluded to, black and brown people were the vast majority of those fined under the jaywalking regulation. As a cis white guy, I didn't even know that jaywalking was 'illegal' in NYC until folks started talking about 'legalizing' it a few years ago. As I mentioned, I've lived here pretty much all my life and have 'jaywalked' in front of police hundreds if not thousands of times and none have ever even looked at me funny. So yes, this is a very good thing. Just one very, very small step on the road to 'a more perfect union', IMHO.

moomin 2y ago

[flagged]

AStonesThrow 2y ago

I grew up in Southern California. My parents strictly observed traffic laws, and riding in the car with them, I would often hear their disapproving gossip about pedestrians' faux pas, including wearing black at night. In high school, a classmate tried to help me loosen up a bit, and he'd encourage our group to cross a busy stroad. "They'll stop! They'll stop for you!" he assured me. He was right... I visited Catalonia awhile ago. My companion was a native there and helped me understand local customs. I was able to drive her car a little bit, LHD, although the roundabouts tended to bewilder me. On foot, we'd approach a busy street and she encouraged me to just cross. She showed me how to hold out a hand as a signal of my intent. Motorists would slow and yield. She was also right. I heard that the walk signal buttons are called "beg buttons", as in "pedestrians beg to enter the street". I use them scrupulously. My justification is that a theoretical personal injury lawsuit is easier to litigate, if I can prove I was doing everything right.

maxwellg 2y ago
Does anyone know if beg button presses get tracked? I often wonder if pressing it increases some great counter in the sky that future city planners can use to design an intersection better.
- esbranson 2y ago
  Good idea.
ryandrake 2y ago
> My justification is that a theoretical personal injury lawsuit is easier to litigate, if I can prove I was doing everything right. I guess the way I see it is if you want your grave stone to read "Here lies AStonesThrow. He had the right of way!" then by all means, step out into traffic--they'll always stop for you.
_yb2s 2y ago
Sounds like survivorship bias to me. A substantial fraction of drivers are generally not looking forward or paying attention at any given time... you're just rolling the dice by assuming they will see you and stop.

gxonatano 2y ago

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 kilometers a day, through dozens of intersections, it's ludicrous to suggest that you should only walk at crosswalks, and only when the walk sign is lit. New Yorkers don't have a concept of "jaywalking"; it's just "walking."

pjmlp 2y ago
To join the voice to the other non-US folks, in the Southern Europe no one cares, we just cross the road regardless the colour. Usually it is only respected in high traffic roads, unless one wants to play frogger in real life. And while there are technically fines, like 10 €, in practice the police has more usefull things to worry about and unless you get an officer having a bad day and someone has to pay for it, they won't care.
nobody9999 2y ago
>New Yorkers don't have a concept of "jaywalking"; it's just "walking." 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.
- metabagel 2y ago
  Yes, crossing at intersections is much more complex, with traffic typically coming from many more directions than away from intersections.
  - wahern 2y ago
    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 speaking. People are constantly milling around on the sidewalk, standing on curbs, doing all manner of crazy things, but not actually crossing. From a driver's perspective, a pedestrian about to cross the street typically looks indistinguishable from a pedestrian just doing the normal insane stuff pedestrians do. Then in a split second they go from normal pedestrian to crossing pedestrian, which is often much too late for a driver to respond, assuming they even noticed, unless it's at an expected crossing. Yes, intersections feel dangerous and risky. But that's precisely why they're safer--pedestrians and drivers alike feel the anxiety, whereas when jaywalking both the pedestrian and car often don't sense any risk at all.

bragr 2y ago

Since they made this change in California last year, I cross where ever when it is safe and convenient. I'm surprised how big of difference it made to the convenience and speed of walking somewhere. No more waiting for 2 different lights just to get to the opposite corner.

Gud 2y ago
As a veteran jaywalker, let me propose that you avoid crossing at junctions, where crossings are usually located, ideally cross at one leg, especially good if it’s a one way street. Less traffic, fewer inputs/outputs to keep under observations.
- prophesi 2y ago
  Where I live, just about all of the downtown streets are one-ways and it does wonders for getting around both on foot and in an automobile. Though the latter will be more punishing if you don't know the lay of the land, and there will be congestion near on-ramps during rush hour.
  - WorldMaker 2y ago
    In my experience, some types of one-way streets are some of the least trustworthy for crossing on foot because drivers treat them as race courses or interstates with speed limits (and sometimes worse, traffic lights) as barely a suggestion. It's interesting how much excitement as a pedestrian I find at the elimination of one-way streets and replacement with calmer two-way street "diet" patterns. (Street "diets" reduce lanes, add more dedicated turn lanes, smarter medians and parking.)
metabagel 2y ago
I had to look this up. "Safe jaywalking" is legal in California, but if you risk a collision, you can be cited. ---------- VC 21955. (a) Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk. (b) (1) A peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation of subdivision (a) unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power. (2) This subdivision does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety. (3) This subdivision does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the roadway.

potato3732842 2y ago

It was de-facto legal to begin with. The only people who were ever hurt by this law were the people who insisted on abiding by the law beyond the point of absurdity. I appreciate that this is one less crime the average person commits every day that a capricious enforcer can make a big deal of but the flip side is that this reduces the competitive advantage of not being law abiding to the point of absurdity and your own detriment.

jplrssn 2y ago
Seems to me like greater damage was being done to the people getting stopped and searched on the pretext of jaywalking. From the article: > The Legal Aid Society called the legislation long overdue. The non-profit organization, which provides free legal representation to New Yorkers who cannot afford a lawyer, said police for decades have used the violation as a pretext to stop, question and frisk residents – especially those of color.

standardUser 2y ago

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 does not mean you should follow them! Always asses your own path because someone else may be timing it differently.

ferrous69 2y ago
> if a car has to hit their breaks even a little, or otherwise alter their trajectory, you're doing it wrong. this is basically NYC law already, including pedestrian interactions
- havblue 2y ago
  One time when I jaywalked in NYC I could have sworn that a cab, who was a half block away, accelerated when he saw me crossing the street. My impression has always been that people hate having their time wasted.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    > My impression has always been that people hate having their time wasted. They do. This is why pedestrians jaywalk to begin with. Can't be bothered to have their time wasted by the law.
jowdones 2y ago
There's also waiting 1-2 minutes for green light on a pedestrian semaphore while the street is entirely empty of cars. If no cops are in sight I definitely cross the street. Usually one or two people get encouraged and also cross but there's always the sticklers who would wait the end of the world if not given the green light.
- 2y ago

thegrim33 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 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.
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.
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.
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.

barrenko 2y ago

Not policing is the latest SF export coming worldwide.

jmugan 2y ago

I remember visiting California in the 1990s and was amazed to see my California friends waiting patiently at the light, looking at me like I was uncivilized because I just crossed the street whenever it was safe.

macintux 2y ago
When I was visiting Finland in 1990, my friend told me the police were so bored there that jaywalking was very likely to result in a ticket.
lysace 2y ago
Current day Sweden: People cross tend to cross the street whenever it feels safe, unless there's some mom/dad with young kids in tow nearby. Then it's polite to wait for the light to turn green. We often have very little traffic on our streets though, and they are often not very wide. It's technically illegal to jaywalk but not punishable unless you manage to cause a traffic accident, somehow. I like these pragmatic laws.
- Schiendelman 2y ago
  In the United States, having laws like that results in discriminatory policing (see many threads here). Probably less than an issue in a country that doesn't have such issues with race.
  - lysace 2y ago
    > It's technically illegal to jaywalk but not punishable unless you manage to cause a traffic accident, somehow. I like these pragmatic laws. Has this been tested?
    - Schiendelman 2y ago
      You may be responding to the wrong comment.

jedberg 2y ago

As far as I know, NYC is unique in that pedestrians do not have the right of way. Everywhere else you must legally stop for a pedestrian but in NYC you don't. (edit, since people seem confused: This doesn't mean you can run them over. It just means you don't have to stop if you are going to block their path. Everywhere else, you have to stop if you are going to block a pedestrian's path, no matter where that pedestrian is.) They have to do this or people would just block all traffic all the time. So this really is just to stop racial profiling. It's really not going to change much in the day to day goings on in NYC.

gosub100 2y ago
Nowhere do you have the right to drive into a human being, whether there's laws against jaywalking or not.
- jedberg 2y ago
  That’s not what that means. It means you’re allowed to block their path. Everywhere else you must stop if you will block the path of a person. In NYC you do not. Of course you can’t run them down.
dghlsakjg 2y ago
The Last Clear Chance Doctrine (in tort law, not criminal law), which is pretty widely accepted, is that regardless of right of way, if you are able to avoid an accident, then you must. Having the right of way matters less than the ability to avoid an accident. If you plow into a pedestrian that you saw from three blocks away, you will absolutely be considered liable civilly since you had a clear chance to avoid a collision. The general rule in almost every vehicle code is that having the right of way does not relieve you of the obligation to do everything reasonable to avoid collisions and injuries.
7speter 2y ago
There was a law passed in NYC a couple of years ago requiring drivers not to enter a crosswalk if pedestrians are in a crosswalk. I have no clue what you're talking about.

sehugg 2y ago

Good riddance. Crosswalks at intersections are nearly obsolete due to the thick A-pillars in modern cars. I would rather have mid-block crosswalks with warning lights and traffic calming devices.

jklinger410 2y ago
> Crosswalks at intersections are nearly obsolete due to the thick A-pillars in modern cars. What?
- consteval 2y ago
  They mean people standing up are invisible to cars in a lot of perspectives.
- maxwellg 2y ago
  A-pillars are the pillars of a car that support the windshield and the front of the roof. They've gotten bigger in recent years - which reduces the visibility of pedestrians, cyclists, and other cars. Drivers can't see through pillars. Big pillars are safer for the driver in case of a collision or a rollover, but paradoxically also makes that car more dangerous for everyone else on the road. I don't think they make crosswalks obsolete, but crossing the road is more dangerous today than it was 50 years ago. https://chi.streetsblog.org/2022/06/08/pickups-suvs-are-driving-the-pedestrian-and-cyclist-death-epidemic-but-the-tide-may-be-turning#:~:text=The%20design%20of,crossing%20the%20road https://chi.streetsblog.org/2022/06/08/pickups-suvs-are-driv....
  - jklinger410 2y ago
    Yeah okay, I understand pedestrian visibility. But cross walks have nothing to do with that really? Like it's a place where you (usually) stop and when you are stopped, pedestrians can go. I don't see how jaywalking would be better than a dedicated place where pedestrians are expected to be. Thick a-frames or not.
    - 2y ago

giantg2 2y ago

It's hard to tell from the article - is it still a violation if you don't yield to traffic with the right of way? If so, that's how jaywalking works in the vast majority of places. If you cross and imped the flow of traffic with the right of way, you are jaywalking and will be ticketed for it. This is just standard in most places.

leecarraher 2y ago

is there a difference, legally, regarding vehicular involuntary manslaughter, between hitting someone who is jaywalking and someone who is not. Example, a person walks into a 65 mph thoroughfare after a curve, since they are no longer in the commencement of a crime, does that make the act tantamount to hitting someone in a crosswalk?

sokoloff 2y ago
Pedestrians are barred (by law) from limited access highways in my state (and I think in most states). I can't readily think of any 65 mph highway that isn't limited access.

jklinger410 2y ago

I will still be using the cross walks everywhere I go. Because there's no shortcut across the street that is worth me stopping traffic or getting hit by a car. Jaywalking is for selfish and impatient people who are bad at assessing risk. Unless the street is completely empty, I guess.

acureau 2y ago
As someone who has never lived in a city this is strange to me. I live in a relatively dense part of Louisiana, but around here you couldn't walk at all without jaywalking. There aren't even sidewalks in a lot of places. You just walk along the side of the road.
- jklinger410 2y ago
  Well if the government doesn't provide infrastructure for you to use, then you have no choice but to jaywalk. What I think is crazy is all of the cities that just don't build sidewalks. I understand in certain rural areas, but yeah, many midwestern and southern cities are downright hostile to pedestrians.

mikhailfranco 2y ago

In general, jaywalking should be legal, but ... There is one situation where some kind of enforcement is needed: crowds of people ignoring pedestrian signals, and flooding across crosswalks continuously. Then the traffic never gets a chance to move. Cars cannot safely crawl or nudge their way through the throng of people, who feel the protection of collective security. One might argue that such large crowds are an indication that the road should be fully pedestrianized - perhaps by time-of-day, or only for specific shopping holidays (e.g. Black Friday, Xmas). The alternative for these peaks is often manual control of people and vehicles by a police/traffic/community officer, like a school crossing). Perhaps there could be some critical crossings where there is a legally enforceable 'double-red' pedestrian signal.

mikhailfranco 2y ago

One consequence of legalizing jaywalking, may be increased prevention by fences and barriers. Low railings may be jumped by an agile adult, but they stop children, elderly, wheelchairs, pushchairs, suitcases or people with heavy shopping. Divided highways may get (more) high fences in the central reservation to deter jaywalking - but of course the frustrated locals will eventually cut convenient holes.

waswaswas 2y ago

In Hong Kong and Mainland China, the sidewalks are railed off everywhere except the crosswalk, presumably to prevent the anarchy that occurs when pedestrians are allowed to freely cross the road anywhere. A little jaywalking is good, a lot of jaywalking renders the road unusable to cars. You don't have to be pro-car or anti-transit to recognize the inefficiency in having roads that are uselessly congested with erratic foot traffic.

notpushkin 2y ago

I’m staying in Manila, Philippines for a while now, and road crossing is wild here. You can have a dozen of people staying at a marked uncontrolled crossing for minutes, yielding to traffic. I usually cross anyway whenever there’s an opening in the traffic, and people look at me like I’m an idiot and continue to stay. I have no idea how they manage to cross the roads at all here.

julio1909x 2y ago

[flagged]

more_corn 2y ago

A crime also known as walking while black because it gives police an excuse to stop you and then escalate to any number of unpleasant places.