Isn't it also for the safety of pedestrians? It's not a good idea to walk on the train tracks either. It seems like the "entire concept" of not walking in front of heavy, fast moving objects may predate automobiles.
Hence the philosophy that is followed in the UK, where there is no such thing as a "jaywalking" infraction. People have had a right of free passage along public highways (English law definition [0]) and general rights of way (Scotland [1]) for centuries, and this right cannot simply be taken away just because now there happen to be heavy fast moving objects that are allowed to use some of them. You are free to walk on and across the road at any point and time whatsoever, as long as you do not cause a danger to other users.
Note that this doesn't apply to motorways (≈freeways) though, as these were expressly constructed to carry automobile vehicles and are therefore legitimately of limited access.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highways_in_England_and_Wales
No, since it puts the onus of their safety of the pedestrians. It made collisions between cars and pedestrians the fault of the pedestrian by default, and excluded them from the road surface.
> It's not a good idea to walk on the train tracks either.
"High speed" train tracks take very little space compared to the road network criss-crossing cities, and thus the exclusion area is essentially nil by comparison.
Pedestrians are not excluded from tram tracks.
>No, since it puts the onus of their safety of the pedestrians.
This does not mean that it is not for their safety.
>"High speed" train tracks take very little space compared to the road network criss-crossing cities, and thus the exclusion area is essentially nil by comparison.
Train tracks don't take you to as many places as roads.
> Pedestrians are not excluded from tram tracks
Yet, they are expected to avoid them and the tram has priority, and many tram routes are protected from pedestrian crossing by barriers. Pedestrians aren't excluded from roads either, it is just that safe crossing points have been established. I know in many places, such as Wien, trams are not obligated to stop at crosswalks if people are waiting.
It's not that important, but the idea that "entire concept of jaywalking is for the convenience of car owners" is really not accurate. No need to overstate that to make your other points.
Imagine a car entering a shopping mall: it will go at a very slow pace as it’s in a place primarily for pedestrians, and hitting kids running around will be 100% the car’s fault it was going any faster.
Putting the burden on the car gives more safety to pedestrian. The reverse (putting the blame on the people for entering car’s way) doesn’t help in that respect.
PS: for instance entering train tracks is not “jaywalking”, and I think you’re focusing on a similar aspect, but for freeways and car dedicated roads ?
In the centres of many European cities, cars must yield to pedestrians, or are excluded completely.
“Jaywalking” as a term is derogatory; you can look up the etymology, if it were invented today it would be called “stupidwalking” or some such.
It was pushed hard by car companies, and they lobbied to make cars the primary user of the road within cities. So a pedestrian choosing to cross would by default be in the wrong, unless in the “correct place”, instead of the opposite.
The pedestrians were there first though, and it's not clear how to balance the needs. After all we do have the concept of isolated car travel for safety, it's called a freeway. Much like a rail system, they are useful and pretty safe for point-to-point travel mostly outside densely populate areas.
The contentious bit is that all other surface level infrastructure should be primarily shaped to fit the needs of cars at the expense of everything else. For a not-so-practical example, if city traffic was strictly limited to 10mph or less, vehicle pedestrian interactions would be much more safe...