>pedestrian jaywalks in front as they're stopped at a stop sign;
>A pedestrian on the corner next to a stop sign causes them to pause
I am struggling to reconcile how the pedestrian does not have the right of way in both these cases.
>A pedestrian on the corner next to a stop sign causes them to pause
I am struggling to reconcile how the pedestrian does not have the right of way in both these cases.
> Pedestrian crossing: 50 state summary
> The majority of states, however, only require motorists to yield to, rather than stop for, pedestrians crossing at uncontrolled crosswalks. Nineteen states require a motorist to yield when a pedestrian is upon any portion of the roadway. Louisiana mandates motorist yielding when a pedestrian is upon the same half of the roadway. Nebraska requires yielding when a pedestrian is upon the same half of the roadway or within one lane of the motorist. Massachusetts mandates yielding when a pedestrian is upon the same half of the roadway or within 10 feet of the motorist; and 20 states mandate motorists yield when a pedestrian is upon the same half of the roadway or approaching closely enough from the opposite side of the roadway to constitute a danger. In addition, in at least five states and the District of Columbia, bicyclists have the same or similar rights as pedestrians.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross...
The pause times do seem longer than a human would take (I noticed this with the right-turn with pedestrian case as well), but I'd rather that self-driving cars err on the side of safe rather than sorry.
This is why we can't have nice things.
2. Your example doesn't even seem to meet the slur's definition.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Safety_consideratio... for the various unique instances.
Personally, I downvoted it for the "civil rights" phrase. It is unnecessary, hyperbolic, and inflammatory; these discussions tend to attract such comments and they derail rational discussion.
In New York, right of way is pretty unilaterally given to road traffic. Outside of otherwise controlled interactions (signaled crosswalks), pedestrians are expected to give way to vehicles. And vehicles (to borrow maritime terminology) have a stand-on duty--they are expected to maintain speed and direction.
So it doesn't matter what posture pedestrians adopt, even when they are standing a full lane into the road (people commonly queue to cross the street in the parking lane, rather than on the sidewalk, leaving the sidewalk clear for people traveling along the street). Cars are expected to proceed---and you can bet they will be reminded of that fact by those behind them if they slow unnecessarily. Furthermore, New York's robust jaywalking culture means that these people are all peering upstream, watching for a break in traffic.
In contrast, California has very much opposite expectations. Cars are expected to yield to pedestrians in pretty much all situations (and jaywalking is rare). It turns out if you exhibit really any of the above behaviors in California, drivers tend to interpret that as telegraphing an immediate intent and request to cross the street.
When I moved to California, I was initially perplexed and frustrated by how it seemed like cars would randomly stop anytime I happened to be standing by a crosswalk, even when I didn't have any intention to cross, or when I was happy to let them pass by first. Lots of awkward "no, no, please proceed" gestures ensued.
Eventually I realized the big cue I was giving them was that I was habitually watching traffic. I now take care to be visibly not looking upstream when standing at a crosswalk. That seems to have solved the problem.
So I submit to you that the difference you're picking up on between pedestrians who do and do not have an intent to cross is whether they are paying attention to traffic.
I don't have to analyze anything, I don't have to negotiate with a driver, don't have to guess speed, I just go when it's my time to go.
A pedestrian jaywalking does certainly not have "the right of way". That doesn't mean the car doesn't still have an obligation to avoid hitting them. The rules of the road are redundant for a reason, one party not doing what they're supposed to should not cause a crash.