Hacker News Reader

Comment by gxonatano | Hacker News Reader

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."

View on HN

>New Yorkers don't have a concept of "jaywalking"; it's just "walking."

It's also not a word in the German language at all, it's just "crossing the road". If you do it safely grate, if you don't not grate and if there are children nearby unsafe road crossing is really something you shouldn't do, especially it it's just because you are to lazy to walk a small bit more (I think crossing a road close by a pedestrian crossing while you aren't allowed to cross it is also the only way it is illegal outside of the case of "you action counting as endangering you or others" (like actually endangering not some absurd twisting of definitions)).

Great

Rotgänger Totgänger!

it's a ad-hoc compound word not a official German word (not in Duden)

it pretty much appears only in the given phrase and hardly anyone uses it

but most importantly is that this phrase is about crossing the street on pedestrian crossing with traffic lights while they signal that you should wait a moment

which indeed is frowned on in Germany, depending on region quite a lot

but jaywalking also refers to you "just crossing the street" at a place where there is no pedestrian crossing. Which outside of Highways, limited-access roads and similar is quite normal.

and sure if there is a pedestrian crossing just a few meter down the road it is frowned on if you don't use it

Most likely because jaywalking was an insult before a legal word.

Like 75% of these kinds of phrases in American English, without looking it up I'm going to assume there is a racist etymology behind it.

Many states had to repeal their jaywalking laws during the civil rights movement because police used it as an easy excuse to abuse black people.

At the same time, a great deal of pedestrian crossings is not marked for cars at all, and only at most hinted towards for pedestrians. Sometimes there is a small pedestrian crossing sign painted on the road facing the sidewalk, sometimes there's just a slight decline in the curbside on both sides. I guess that this is some legal loophole to give cars priority, since legally they have to stop if someone wants to cross the street on a marked crossing with no traffic lights.

Laws vary. In Washington every street corner is an unmarked crosswalk, where pedestrians have priority. Many drivers don’t know this, of course.

I think given that the upper comment speaks about Germany not having a word for it I would guess the comment is about Germany. Where laws are the same for traffic across all of it (ignoring administrative differences).

Neither do most pedestrians. Let's be real, most Washingtonians don't know most of the traffic laws. This state really badly needs better education in that sense.

Most people also don't know that you're not supposed to enter a crosswalk when the "DONT WALK/red person" is blinking, or the countdown timer is running. It is supposed to be treated like a yellow. Finish crossing the street, but do not enter the crosswalk. Though I suppose that stepping on the gas is how drivers treat a yellow also!

The 4 way , 90 degree, 'yield' intersections got me as I didn't have a stop sign and straight up assumed that that must mean they did.

Lady in a Subaru was REALLY mad.

It's mainly that way because due to crossing at most places being legal you don't need specially marked crossing and special marked crossings are mostly reserved for special situations.

Like legally speaking there is no direct rule weather a car has to slow down or stop when someone is crossing the road. But if not doing so would endanger anyone the car has to do it anyway. And not doing so means you are pretty much fully liable for any damages this causes (assuming they had time to react etc.). Similar going on a street in a way which forces a car to strongly break isn't legal, as abrupt breaking comes with all kinds of dangers. For many situations especially small streets, low to mid traffic situations or situations with such high traffic that they jam this works perfectly fine without needing any "official" pedestrian crossings anywhere.

There still can be "unofficial" crossing, but they mainly exist to make space at the side of the street i.e. prevent parking cars blocking pedestrians from crossing. This matters especially for people with buggies, baggage or e.g. walkers. It also helps with visibility as small people like children are easy to overlook between parking cars. But they have no special legal handling and aren't loop holes or anything either. Just the normal way pedestrian crossing had been handled in most places before care traffic became big.

Through because "people aren't always careful", "crossing streets with multiple lanes is always a bit scary" and "sometimes traffic is just too high" and similar we have pedestrian crossings with traffic lights on nearly all road crossings involving multi lane streets or streets with 50km/h speed limit. Sometimes there are also traffic lights for things which are only pedestrian crossings, normally with a button you have to press for them to signal cars to stop.

Lastly there are properly marked pedestrian crossings (zebra strips, with appropriate sign) which are special in that cars have to stop if it looks like a pedestrian _maybe_ wants to cross the street. Not just if it would be dangerous to not do so. They are basically a cheaper version of a on demand traffic lights in situations where crossing the street without one can be hard to do safely while there is very little pedestrian traffic at the same time (e.g. on a street where for a long strap is no crossing with traffic lights but sometimes people have to cross in the middle but only a few times a day). Sometimes also used in situations where theoretically not specially handling is needed but due to idk. there being a primary school nearby it's done to add a bit of additional safety.

In NY, all intersections have a crosswalk whether marked or not.

It's cultural, being a foreigner in Germany, you always get told to comply to rules. I couldn't care less about it and just shrug it off. Honestly, some cities are really hostile to pedestrians with barely any crossings. I don't care if there are children around.

We know the meaning of the American word in Britain, but it's also not a concept here.

Germany seems very strict compared to the UK. You can be fined €10 in Germany for crossing when the red man is lit!

Yes but jaywlaking is more then just crossing when the light is red (which indeed is highly frowned on in parts of Germany, and very normal in other parts of Germany). Jaywalking also refers to e.g. crossing the road without having a pedestrian crossing which is very normal in Germany.

> Jaywalking also refers to e.g. crossing the road without having a pedestrian crossing which is very normal in Germany.

It's actually more like crossing in the middle instead of the corner, corners are automatically allowed even without special markings, which from other comments seems like it's either illegal or frowned upon in germany too, right?

only crossing on a pedestrian traffic light while it's signals you to wait is frowned on (and illegal) (also including crossing just idk. 5m below the traffic light while it's red for pedestrians).

for the rest basically if you do it "unsafely" especially if there are children it's also frowned on but otherwise very normal

some more conservative place might also frown on crossing close by a pedestrian crossing even if there is no red light at the crossing because "why are you so lazy to not walk that additional idk. 20m"

but I have yet to meet anyone who expects you to idk. walk down 100m to the next crossing and then 100m back or something like that

and all of this is for streets where there might be a traffic light, for most residential side streets people all the time cross wherever they like without giving it any thought

and in rural villages stuff like children playing on hardly used residential side streets is not really that rare (important not the "main" street passing through the village even if it's classified as a side street too.)

While travelling in Germany, I got to know the man in the pedestrian lights has a name: Ampelman (Ampelmännchen). The fact that they gave it a name - no wonder it’s a touchy topic for them.

In Britain he has roughly as much of a name: the Green Man (or the Red Man), as in "wait for the Green Man" said to a child.

Not in the UK either.

My assumption for the first 30+ years of my life, after watching US films was that it was something akin to walking while looking suspicious.

I find the differing conceptions of 'freedom' interesting. The US likes to think of itself as more free, but they can't even cross the road.

PS fyi, its 'great'. 'grate' sounds the same, but that means a thick metal grid, typically on the floor, or as to grate cheese.

Freedom has more to do with allowing people to cross the road, and not so much with where they are allowed to cross.

Idk if it’s a word in Czech but I got a ticket for crossing the street wrong there

In Vienna, which has very good public transport and a large walking population, there is a strong culture against jaywalking. Locals will wait at the crosswalk sign even on minor roads with no traffic. Having lived in New York, London, and other places, I've never seen anything like it.

I'm willing to bet drivers in Vienna also obey traffic signals/laws, which is also something you cannot expect from NYC drivers.

Not really.

It’s common enough that not crossing at a red light as a pedestrian (with no cars in sight) can be a tell that you’re potentially German :)

I saw the same thing in not quite 'rural' Czechia, but definitely not Prague.

I noticed that. But people are very regimental there.

It's a bit strange though because the city doesn't even have that many cars and usually it's pretty safe to just look both ways.

>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.

Yep. The times I've been hit by a car while walking it was the car rolling through stop signs, lights and turns.

Yes, crossing at intersections is much more complex, with traffic typically coming from many more directions than away from intersections.

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.

These deaths largely occur on high-speed roadways where people shouldn't be walking, or where the speed should be lower. The issue in both cases is a lack of public transit density. If you're in a dense area with a ton of pedestrians, the speed should be low enough that you CAN react, and there should be transit options that lower the number of car trips. In less dense areas, where automobile speeds are higher, auto and pedestrian traffic should be segregated; again, there should be other transit options that keep pedestrians away from spaces ripe for collisions.

Essentially, build more rail/bus lanes/bike lanes and lower traffic speed. The problem isn't jaywalking and it never was.

and the separation has to be realistic.

if you have businesses and residences fronting onto opposite sides of a high speed road and the nearest legal crossing is a half mile away, that's not realistic. almost nobody will decide "hey let me add a whole mile of walking to my journey and a few minutes at a signal to cross safely."

I live in SF. We just had an accident the other day that indisputably can be pinned on jaywalking--late at night, cross where there was an actual fence, and the car hadn't been speeding. In fact, the limit is 25 there. Jaywalking figures prominently in pedestrian deaths in this city, and it's not simply because of speeding as there simply aren't that many streets where you can go that fast, and in fact in some of the worst areas (e.g. Tenderloin) you'll find the slowest speeds. Pedestrian deaths are also often elderly, as younger victims would have been more likely to survive at the speeds they were hit.

Another major issue in this city, though, is visibility, what with all the tightly packed parallel parking, and streets (especially in the western half) just the perfectly wrong width for modern car A pillars. I would fully support shutting down dozens of streets that criss-cross the city to through traffic and dedicate them to biking and pedestrians. The bike lanes here (where people end up dying, regardless) piss me off to no end as much of time the city could have just given an entire street over to bikes a block away, rather than some of the most trafficked (by cars) thoroughfares, and everybody would be better off.

But another odd thing about SF is that pedestrians simply don't look. In every other major city I've lived or visited, in the US and around the world, the vast majority of pedestrians look before crossing a street. I've lived in SF for nearly 20 years and I can't get over how people just cross the streets--wide streets, busy streets, blind corners, etc--without a care in the world. It doesn't make it any less tragic, but... it's just so fscking bizarre. And I don't mean to excuse their deaths. Cars should be more careful, and they're definitely not--I'm wary of letting my children cross streets alone here, and I get honked regularly for not gunning it the moment a pedestrian crosses the center line when crossing. At the same time I find it very difficult to get too worked up when people blithely step in front of dump trucks (accident two weeks ago where even the city said there was absolutely nothing the city could have done to improve that intersection--the person just walked in front of the truck against every precaution).

> I would fully support shutting down dozens of streets that cross-cross the city to through traffic and dedicate them to biking and pedestrians.

I dream of this version of SF...

Given the size of the city, and amount of pedestrians and general walkability, I'm always amazed at how hard it is to get a pedestrian street here and there.... Even the peninsula is starting to get them in a way we seem to not be able to.

On street parking really is the worse as a pedestrian. Yes, you can technically cross at any intersection in Seattle, but cars are parked so close that they won't see you unless you poke your head out. A lot of pedestrian problems could be solved by getting rid of or severely restricting on street parking.

Also, drugs are a huge issue. We have a lot of pedestrian/car accidents, something like 70% of them involves controlled substance abuse from either the driver or pedestrian (and much of the time, its the pedestrian). Fent really is a big problem.

technically speaking the law is that you can't park 20 feet from an intersection but in practice this is rarely enforced in Seattle. I feel like literally putting up plastic posts and paint blocking the 20 foot zone would do wonders for safety.

it also does not help that people in Seattle love a rolling California stop, which is not legal. Combine that with the baseline level of driver distraction and I have gotten almost hit by inattentive drivers way too much.

If there is an accident at the intersection and a illegally parked car was blocking visibility. Can the owner of said car be sued for accessory? Or even get majority of the blame if there was no fault found in how the pedestrian or driver acted.

> late at night, cross where there was an actual fence, and the car hadn't been speeding. In fact, the limit is 25 there

How far away was the legal crosswalk they could have used?

> These deaths largely occur on high-speed roadways where people shouldn't be walking

Most deaths happen on non-freeway arterial roads.

Most deaths do not note the presence of a sidewalk.

You talk about "alternative transit options" but the reality is that large parts of our cities have no sidewalks or crosswalks and it is killing people.

>Most deaths happen on non-freeway arterial roads.

Pelham Parkway in the Bronx, Queens Boulevard in Queens, Linden Boulevard in Brooklyn and Hylan Boulevard on Staten Island all qualify for that designation[0], and lots of pedestrians are struck on these roads.

[0] N.B. We don't have 'freeways' in NYC. We have highways. There are also 'turnpikes' which are toll roads, but there aren't any of those within city limits.

> And yet jaywalking accounts for the majority of pedestrian deaths, despite being a fraction of the number of crossings.

It's because some people think jumping out of bush at 11pm wearing all black to cross right in front of a car is a good idea.

> jaywalking accounts for the majority of pedestrian deaths

No, car drivers are responsible for pedestrian deaths. Please put the blame where in belongs.

> And yet jaywalking accounts for the majority of pedestrian deaths, despite being a fraction of the number of crossings.

This is simply false.

While most pedestrian deaths happen on open roadways (with a 3:1 ratio), that isn't the same thing as jay walking. Indeed, most of these fatalities involve people on the side of the road, usually in the dark.

Most pedestrian deaths happen at night. This is when it is easiest to see cars coming and avoid getting hit when crossing, (atleast if the cars have their lights on, which is frequently not the case).

Most pedestrian deaths happen in areas with no sidewalk. If there's no sidewalk, then there isn't going to be a safe option to cross.

https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/GHSA/Pedestrian...

Please don't make up and share facts because they support your worldview.

Good reference. Thanks!

Its just an assumption that all people on the roads are having 100% focus on whole surrounding situation, 100% of the time. If you drive a bit as the only parent in the car with 2+ small kids, you know that ain't true, and yes complex intersections are one of the worst places.

Plus you have literal a-holes who ignore traffic rules on purpose, which in place where I live (Switzerland) is maybe 80% of the cyclists. I've had few near miss (5cm max) as a pedestrian where cyclist with red light zoomed through thick crowd crossing without even slowing down. Bear in mind that >=30kmh hit of pedestrian can easily end up in fatality or permanent disability, when wife worked on urgency in biggest hospital around here, there were some dead pedestrians from such collisions.

New York is probably the only place in the US where most of the drivers did not learn to drive here.

It's the most international city in the US, and a disproportionate number of people who use the roads (taxis, delivery drivers, etc) grew up in places that have a traffic system very different that the US's. People in New York routinely run red lights, roll through crosswalks, ride in the shoulder - things that you might encounter in other countries, but are generally considered disrespectful/dangerous in the US. When so many drivers grew up driving in places that tolerate those behaviors (either in their home countries or as native New Yorkers), it creates a road culture that's very different than you'd expect in other parts of America.

In other cities, you can take a "trust but verify" approach to traffic. Drivers will respect traffic lights. Pedestrians will cross where they're meant to. People will (only) use the lanes painted on the road. You have to be alert in case an outlier does something differently, but we generally consider those people selfish exceptions.

The written rules and the practiced culture deviate immensely in New York. You can't just operate by the rules and expect that everyone else will too.

>New York is probably the only place in the US where most of the drivers did not learn to drive here.

Yep. They "learned" in Connecticut, New Jersey and Long Island. And that's really scary.

As I mentioned, MTA bus drivers are the worst at this sort of thing. And they learned to drive (at least their buses) here in NYC.

Got anything else you want to blame on immigrants? It seems to be trending behavior. And more's the pity.

> Got anything else you want to blame on immigrants? It seems to be trending behavior. And more's the pity.

Also, getting a license in many countries is far more difficult than in the US. Where I'm from there aren't even learner permits. The only way to learn is to take lessons with a real instructor and the exam is really strict. Most people fail several times and spend thousands on getting it.

> New York is probably the only place in the US where most of the drivers did not learn to drive here.

Not the only place. Many in the Washington DC area learned to drive elsewhere in the country.

It's up to the USA (or New York state) to recognize (or not) foreign licences, and to decide how easy (fill in a form) or difficult (take a driving test) it is to swap a foreign licence for a local one.

https://dmv.ny.gov/driver-license/resources-for-non-us-citiz...

For example, an American driving licence can be exchanged for a Danish one if an American moves to Denmark, but a Mexican one cannot — they must take the full driving test.

https://international.kk.dk/live/transport-and-parking/drivi...

If you were to respect things like lights and lanes in NYC you would never get anywhere. I believe the city is generally pretty safe when it comes to pedestrians. Usually deaths are late at night from truck drivers going way too fast in the outer boroughs.

This doesn't indicate cities but shows by state and NY is very low compared to others. The worst thing is deaths are up in the country and the "light truck" seems to be a leading factor: https://www.ghsa.org/resources/Pedestrians24

"If you were to respect the lights and lanes you'd never get anywhere"

Honestly-- this is why I smoke weed while I drive around NYC because if I didn't I would maul one of you traffic malthusians with a steel pipe.

Amsterdam is just like New York (New Amsterdam!) in that pedestrians (and bikes) cross wherever they like. Next up: in Amsterdam most bikes and pedestrians will not wait for a red light on small crossings when they can see there is no oncoming traffic. Technically illegal but I've never heard of anyone being fined. No harm no foul. But I guess the large intersections in New York make it trickier to estimate whether that's safe to do.

Laws that allow cyclists to treat stop signs and red lights as yield signs are called "Idaho stop" laws and are debated fiercely.

Unfortunately, New York seems to be odd in this respect. Even at lightly used stop lights, such as the lights inside of Central Park when most vehicles can’t use the roads, the police have been known to ticket cyclists.

Then again, I’ve also seen the police ticket cyclists for speeding in the park.

Numerous Reddit threads for both topics.

Typically those crosswalks in Central Park have a lot of pedestrians. So, makes sense.

I guess jaywalking laws have been used as bandaid for what is the real problem - a complete disregard for pedestrians and cyclists on the road in big North American cities. But instead of putting more onus on the motorists, they’ve offloaded it to the former. I guess you could say the bias extends to the lawmakers. Almost feels like victim shaming, if you ask me.

But the fact is, jaywalking is against the law and when people don’t follow the rules, it just adds to the confusion which can cause more accidents. Just makes one wonder - what’s the point of it?

I think in this case the exception is Central Park, not the rest of the city. I've lived here three years and see cyclists blow through red lights every single day, it's more or less expected at this point. For better or worse, the police largely don't enforce traffic laws for bikers in NYC.

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.

>like most New Yorkers, you walk several kilometers a day

I don't think I can take this claim for granted.

I think so. I live in a fairly big city and it's the same here. Excellent public transport, not so many cars around. Walking to the subway station is already 600m. Inside the subway system one can walk a lot for connecting lines. Even if I did have a car it would be a few blocks away in some parking garage. It's not like we have car ports or driveways here.

3 km is only 1.9 miles, or just over half an hour of walking for most people. If you have a 0.95 mile commute you've already hit the several kilometers per day bar.

I've found that people tend to look at me strange when I describe 3km as within walking distance.

Do you live in NYC?

Anecdotally, when I go out there for business events the locals invariably suggest walking if the distance is ~1 mile or less. Do that there and back and you've hit 3 km walked on a single event.

>Do you live in NYC?

In Manhattan at least (this is different elsewhere in NYC), as a general rule, 20 city blocks (going from 44th Street to 45th Street is one city block) is approximately one mile. Three Avenue blocks (e.g., from Fifth to Sixth Avenues, etc.) is also approximately one mile.

Walking ten blocks (~800 meters/~1/2 mile) to do just about anything is pretty normal, and walking further is pretty common too. If you note that's one-way, the round trip is ~1.6km and multiple jaunts daily aren't uncommon.

While street lengths are different in other boroughs, depending on where you live, you may well walk several miles every day. Or you may not. Folks who live in the North Bronx, Staten Island, Eastern Queens or South/Southeastern Brooklyn may well use motorized vehicles for many purposes, as the layouts are more similar to US suburbs than other places in NYC. YMMV (pun intended).

Edit: Fixed prose.

I have always used four Manhattan avenue blocks as a mile... As a life long born NYC'er. Not three.

I'm a native NYer too. And three was generally the rule of thumb AFAIK.

That said, as we both know, avenue blocks are of varying lengths. So depending on which avenue blocks we choose, we're probably both right and both wrong at the same time.

I live in Toronto, Canada. I would have expected our culture to be less car-centric, if anything.

You'd expect that if you assume that US cities are all pretty similar in their car-centeredness, but NYC and LA couldn't be more different in this respect.

Interesting. What happened to effect such a difference?

For reference, 6.4 kilometers is roughly 8000 steps, which is easily achievable every single day if you do any walking even in small cities.

On days where I work from home and never leave my 950 sqft apartment, 2000ish steps is trivial to reach.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com