Just the concept of “jaywalking” as a punishable offense is revolting to me.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...
[3] (Not Just Bikes) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWsGBRdK2N0
It's a required compromise to allow pedestrians and high-speed automobile traffic to coexist. This unfairly-dead comment has a good discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27561530
Get rid of it, and you'll either have more pedestrians getting run over (e.g. some distracted guy on his cell phone accidentially rushing out in front of some car, getting killed in the process and traumatizing some driver) or you'll have to lower speed limits, which would make longer-distance travel more inefficient and inconvenient.
I think this comment demonstrates the perverse value system I’m commenting against. I don’t mean this as an insult to you, merely to point out how people have been programmed to think people shouldn’t be able to live in a city without being terrified of their lives so we don’t mildly annoy drivers.
The scenario that would actually be likely to happen is the exact opposite. A distracted driver running over and killing a pedestrian that’s crossing on a green light or a zebra crossing. That happens very regularly.
Cars have no business driving faster than 15-20mph on a city steet.
It's not a perverse value system, it's acknowledging reality. Cars aren't going away anytime soon, because they provide real benefits. In a world with cars, pedestrians can't act like they did when cars didn't exist, laws or no.
No diver (with some homicidal exceptions) wants to hit a pedestrian, just like no pedestrian (with some suicidal exceptions) wants to get hit by a car. To minimize those kinds of events, both groups need to act in certain ways (with added motivation provided by penalties); it's objectively inferior to try to concentrate responsibly only on one group or the other.
> The scenario that would actually be likely to happen is the exact opposite. A distracted driver running over and killing a pedestrian that’s crossing on a green light or a zebra crossing. That happens very regularly.
Pedestrians shouldn't be crossing on a green light (in my city, there'd be a "don't walk" light in that case).
> Cars have no business driving faster than 15-20mph on a city streets.
Maybe in a dense city or a residential neighborhood (where I live streets with unposted limits are 25mph, which covers almost all residential streets), but it's a fact that other areas were built with arterial roads that need traffic to flow much faster.
Where do you live where you think it is reasonable to set a speed limit below 35 mph?
EDIT: And in fact most of the residential streets here are 25 mph, and I think only that high because it's the minimum posted speed limit in the state of Pennsylvania. (I'd like to see that lowered personally, and more importantly some traffic calming that's actually effective.)
The problems you describe seem absent from my experience living all my life in Sweden's second largest city with plenty of pedestrians and motor vehicles crossing the same streets.
Actually, I don't think it's so much the fine itself but the sense that not crossing at a crosswalk is "wrong." The the laws against the behavior (and the penalties necessary for such a law) are there mainly to create that understanding.
Of course self-preservation is also a factor, but I'd wager the behavior is more effectively inhibited when it's not the only factor.
Do you have a reason beyond your gut to believe jaywalking penalties work?
It passed the Assembly and is going to the State Senate now.
It's not an offense in my country. It is also not a term you learn in school. So when I was in the US for the first time, and had a policeman shouting "No Jaywalking", I had no idea what he meant.
If I'm about to cross the road, I am perfectly capable of deciding when it's safe or not. If the light is red but there's no traffic, it's safe to cross.
If I'm standing at a crossing and the light is green, meaning that I can walk, but there's a car out of control heading down the road (or an ambulance with its sirens on, etc) then it's not safe to cross, regardless of the green light.
I'm living in Germany at the moment, and you definitely get angry looks and comments for crossing when the light is red (especially if there are children around - because teaching kids to think for themselves and take personal responsibility for their safety is bad?). I find it all very weird.
So it’s prudent to instil in them a respect for the rules. Then when they’re teenagers they’ll automatically rebel and learn about personal responsibility :)
Personally I jaywalk when it's safe and no kids are around.
When I hear the word, I tend to think of people who take for granted that a car will stop for them and probably even conspicuously turn away from it.
I don't think of it as meaning "crossing the street where there is no marked crosswalk" absent traffic, or "crossing the street at an intersection" even if there is no marking and someone who wants to make a turn.
We can't get rid of cars and streets. That cat is over a hundred years outside of the bag. It's moved on, had it's own family, and died.
Jaywalking as a punishable offense makes sense to me at least. The level of punishment is often excessive certainly. $250 fine for stepping onto the street is far too much for a first offense (but perhaps for a habitual jaywalker it makes sense). Hell, I'm guilty of doing it a lot in my exurb area. However, when I do it it's because there's 2 miles between posted crosswalks and I make sure I can cross safely before trying. There aren't enough crosswalks - certainly.
Jaywalking laws create important predictability. I can assume that the average civilian is deterred by jaywalking law enough to not randomly step out onto the street at will. This means I can anticipate them only at crosswalks and intersections. You're already busy dodging drivers distracted with doing anything but driving (makeup, listening to podcasts, eating, reading a book, etc). If we didn't have these laws the risk to driving would be much higher. Many people think humans stand no chance against cars, but one errant jaywalker going through a car window can kill everyone in the vehicle given sufficient enough velocity. It's important to remember a 45 mph impact on a ~125-200 pound human carries with it tremendous momentum. Assuming they don't go through the car window, that same flying body can do lethal damage to law abiding people walking on the sidewalks.
The UK doesn't have jaywalking laws. I understand that. But the UK is far more "walkable". The US is by-and-large not. Especially as you get into "normal" towns and not major metros like LA and NYC. I would be willing to agree jaywalking laws need to be done away with if the US was more walkable.