I'd never considered that idea before: Cars are now more important than pedestrians. I've always had the opinion that pedestrians are above the drivers, but then again, I don't live in America. Perhaps things differ there.
Even within America, norms differ. Two weeks ago my family travelled to California for a vacation, and while walking around they marveled at the way cars would stop for pedestrians waiting at crosswalks. The first time this happened, they were confused... the driver came to a stop to wait for us? In Raleigh you have to wait at a crosswalk until it's all clear in all directions, even if that takes a few cycles of the stoplight, and jog across before more traffic comes.
Yeah, I had the same experience on my first trip to California. I had lived in Boston for years (you know the joke, right? "What's the largest cause of traffic accidents in Boston? Two drivers aiming for the same pedestrian!") and found myself needing to cross a busy four-lane road in San Francisco, with nary a traffic light in sight. I thought I was screwed, but once I stepped out into the crosswalk, I felt like Moses parting the Red Sea. Surreal :-)
In Boston it's safer to jaywalk than wait for a green light, since cars turn right without looking All The Time. Boston bicyclists are reviled, but their daring-do and disregard for the rules of the road are a direct reaction to following those rules being an excellent way to get yourself killed.
Yeah, drivers in my country are taught to watch out for vulnerable road users (i.e. pedestrians), moving a vehicle onto a pavement is prohibited except for access reasons.
I would say its worse in some parts or Europe. In N. Ireland for example pedestrians do not have the right of way at a crosswalk. Drivers will run you over in an attempt to turn onto a side street. In Colorado, pedestrians are treated like a distinct lane of traffic, so you have to yield to them if you want to cross into their lane.
I actually thought that Jaywalking was a joke - until I visited America. And it was incredibly frustrating for someone from the UK to cross the roads. I really loathed it.
In my mind the rule of the road is something like:
Pedestrians>Cyclists>Scooters>Motorbikes>Cars
I always give large mass vehicles and pedestrian carriers a wide berth.
Though a little common sense can go a long way! What's the problem crossing an empty road! Or even speeding on an empty road?
As an American it is funny you say that, when I visited France a few years back I spent time in Nice and Paris and it definitely seemed like road vehicles had the right of way. Pedestrians had to be smart about when crossing (even if that is technically, and legally incorrect).
I don't own a car, and I live in a big Northeast US city so walking and public transportation is my main mode of transit - jaywalking is a way of life in Boston and NYC from experience and is probably similar in other NE cities. However, I also think your order is totally wrong, in my mind it is the opposite, the biggest, heaviest vehicles should have ROW especially at this point in history when the average driver is distracted by so many things in his vehicle. Response times are going to be suboptimal ... pedestrians needs to be mindful of where they are traversing.
> in my mind it is the opposite, the biggest, heaviest vehicles should have ROW especially at this point in history when the average driver is distracted by so many things in his vehicle. Response times are going to be suboptimal
This sounds to me like you're saying that the law should reward people for wielding more power (bigger heavier vehicles) less responsibly (driving distracted). A prudent pedestrian will and should be mindful of where he's going and I don't think anyone with an instinct to self-preservation would say otherwise, but shouldn't the law serve the interests of the vulnerable where they conflict with the powerful?
The law recognizes reality; a motor vehicle, even one driven by a "perfect" driver, has far fewer degrees of freedom in any given situation than a pedestrian. The vehicle has momentum, limitations on the braking force that can be applied to this momentum, limitations on the ability of the steering system to change the direction that the vehicle mass is traveling in, and sensory limitations for the driver that can decrease the reaction time available. A pedestrian can not move as fast or as far in reaction to such a situation, but they can change direction of travel far more quickly and have a better ability to hear or see the oncoming vehicle.
In a place and time where the motor lobby had not been so successful, the law would probably recognize this reality by imposing strict limitations on the use of machinery which, as you describe it, is so intrinsically dangerous. Locomotive Acts, for example
In Sri Lanka there is a pecking order. And bigger wins out.
High mass vehicles haven't got the ability to stop quickly - or get out the way like a pedestrian or cyclist so I understand that.
However I can't help but feel that we have our priorities skewed. I personally loathe motorised traffic (except for when I need it!)
I'd rather confine freight to nights. And keep traffic out of town centres. And let pedestrians and cyclists relax a little. I think we should all me mindful on the road, but it's pretty tedious being forever vigilant. Some pedestrians haven't fast reactions at all.
As a cyclist, I'm happy to use the sidewalk where the road I feel is too dangerous - but that wouldn't be at the expense of a pedestrian's right of way.
I live near the sea, and the nicest place to cycle is along the sea front away from traffic - it's glorious - but yet illegal. Yet if there were more routes like this, we might have more cyclists. In this case it's illegal as the board walk is there for pedestrians, but it's empty for a good amount of the year. I would still give a pedestrian right of way. So it's in part, attitude. Not thinking that I have right of way.
The article suggests that drivers who kill people get off lightly in NYC and that may be true. But what statistics say is that the City has been progressively getting safer for pedestrians over the past decade.
There were 4.87 fatalities per 100,000 in NYC in 2001 and that number has dropped to 2.8 per 100,000 for 2011.
Perhaps City officials found it more useful to make safety improvements and changing the behavior of all drivers than to harshly punish drivers who made a fatal mistake after the fact.
What I really don't understand is this obsession some people seem to have with jailing people for a mistake that will already haunt them for the rest of their lives.
Deterrence. Motivation for all the other drivers to pay attention and keep control of their cars at all times. Legislation alone can't stop pedestrian deaths, drivers must change their behavior.
The desire to not go to jail is stronger than the desire to not kill someone? I know when I slow down for pedestrains I'm thinking about not hitting people, not not going to jail. Maybe I give others too much credit.
I don't know about other places, but on the highway in Michigan near construction sites they sometimes have signs saying something like "If you injure a worker, it's a $5000 fine and up to 25 years in jail".
Note the precedence of the $5000 fine before the 25 years of jail time. Clearly the Michigan DOT thinks that fines and jail time are necessary incentives to not kill or harm construction workers.
In the UK jaywalking is legal but there has been an increase in pedestrian deaths. The assumed cause is "zombies" - pedestrians listening to music via headphones not paying enough attention.
Same has happened to zombie cyclists.
Funny story is a friend who jay walked at 2am in a western European village. Arrested and fined. Go figure?
One of my colleagues seemed surprised that jaywalking is legal in the UK. Another friend seemed perplexed when a car stopped to let him across the road.
I think it stems down to our different attitude. We're taught in school to "stop, look, listen" but all major road campaigns focus on the driver's behaviour e.g. speeding, drink/drugs.
I think as far as cyclists go, I don't think music should affect your awareness of the road. Being able to hear cars behind you helps, but you should always be looking before you move.
> Another friend seemed perplexed when a car stopped to let him across the road.
I'm Canadian and the motorist behaviour you get depends on what part of Canada you live in.
Out east cars stop to let pedestrians walk.
In Quebec/Ontario they seem to speed up to signal that you'd better not get in there way.
Out West cars and people seem to have an agreement that people time their walking so that the car passes them before they get to the middle of the road, but no one slows down.
I was shocked in Toronto in the late 1980s when a young woman I was talking with stepped out in the middle of the street. Being accustomed mostly to Washington and Baltimore, I thought I was about to see an accident with at best grave injuries to her. The car stopped, and I started breathing again.
In Washington, DC, there is a lot of jaywalking, but in most neighborhoods the pedestrians are damn careful to be sure that they are have the space to cross.
I agree with you about the music. I used to listen to music on my push bike - but I don't now - mainly because if I turn it up to the point I can actually hear it over the din of the cars, I'd damage my ears. I could always hear the traffic over the music. Probably more so than a driver with the stereo turned up.
Other cyclists weren't that happy to see me place headphones on. Though if you mute one sense, it can heighten another.
I see plenty of cyclists that don't observe the roads properly - even signalling and veering out without looking behind - at least I use my eyes.
I'm more concerned myself about drivers that I still see daily using their mobile phones at the wheel.
A cyclist has a higher reaction time than a driver traveling at speed - something that drivers forget. That's not to say you don't need to be alert.
The fine for jaywalking in Massachusetts is one dollar. It's unheard of here to be stopped for crossing the street anywhere. When I first arrived in Boston, years ago, I was waiting for the light with a bunch of other pedestrians when a cop came along and said, "what are you waiting for? this is Boston" and crossed the street with the rest of us behind him.
Yup. People still do it constantly. Enforcement is extremely spotty, to say the least, stories by HN fellows nonwithstanding. I think it's a 10 EUR fine if you do get called up on it. It gets much more expensive when you do it on a bike.
I think relating this to the general notion of individual liberty is ridiculous but then again that's just what you'd expect a German to say, isn't it.
Yes Germany is much more strict with jaywalking than the UK or Ireland. I don't think it's to do with Angloexceptionalism, but more to do with cultural reasons and different countries valuing certain laws.
For example the UK is much more strict than say Ireland with car tax. If you don't tax your car in the UK, you get an automatic fine in the post. In Ireland there are no automatic fines, it depends if a Guard (police officer) sees you. You can often get away with your tax being 1 month out of date if you sweet talk the office. Individual liberty as a concept has a stronger history in Ireland than in Britain (ha!) or different countries have different laws.
(Another example: I've heard drink driving is more common in USA than UK. Different countries, different attitudes to what laws to have and enforce)
"You can often get away with your tax being 1 month out of date if you sweet talk the office. "
You can also sweet talk a guard into leaving you off with speeding, or at least try. There was a segment on the NewsTalk radio a few weeks back about the best excuses guards hear from motorists:
- "Ah guard, have you nothing better to be doing with your time?" At which point, the guard will stand back casually and point at the letters TRAFFIC CORPS emblazoned on the side of the Garda car.
- "Ah guard, it's a new car, I was only testing the speedometer to see if it was accurate." etc.
You couldn't imagine having this kind of banter with a cop in the US for example, as he doesn't know if the motorist is armed or whatever. UK-based Irish comedian Dara O'Briain did an excellent sketch about people in the UK being far more 'black and white' about things, whereas in Ireland we 'appreciate the shades of grey' in life!
Exactly. Another example of how 2 close countries can be culturally different: Most people in UK don't realise how much of Father Ted is based on real things and real people and real norms (everything from the dancing priest, (catholic) bishops with children, mrs doyle's arguing over who pays the bill, etc.) They think it's all made up.
This is relevant to people who extrapolate from "Germany bans jaywalking" to "UK has much more of a fundamental respect for individual liberty". It could be that reason, but it could also be just another cultural difference without underlying causes.
Interestingly, from my experience even with that cars will hard-brake if you so much as close in on the sidewalk/street limit, it is very weird to see cars shriek to a halt as you're getting slightly closer to the street to better see a sign on the other side, with no intention whatsoever of crossing.
I got stopped by a cop in Germany once. Everyone was waiting for the walk light to appear. There was no traffic and one small lane to cross so I went; we're talking 20ft(7m). Next thing I know the cop is asking for my passport. He told me it was illegal but let me go after he ran my passport.
I noticed getting the stink eye from people in Copenhagen while crossing empty streets against the signals. It actually happened several times before I was able to figure out what I was doing that was annoying them. :/
There is a prohibition to cross the street on a street crossing against a red light here in Sweden.
There is however no punishment associated with the rule, and you are allowed to cross the street at other places if need be. Drivers are always at fault for any damage caused by their car, regardless of if the jaywalker disregarded the lights. Also, cars are required by law to let walking people have right of way if they encounter any crossing not guarded by lights.
There seems to be a strong cultural affinity for following the crosswalks and crossing lights, as well. Danes really will stand on a street corner waiting for the light to change, even if it's 2am in a small town and there are no cars for a kilometer. Someone scolded me once when I crossed on a red light! Not even a cop, just a random person told me I should follow the crossing lights. On the other hand, when pedestrians do have the right of way, cars are good about stopping; for example, cars making a right turn will wait for people to cross in a crosswalk, even if they haven't stepped off the curb yet.
Jaywalking is one of the few activities that will make Danes break character and actually recognise a stranger. As a Boston-native who moved to Copenhagen for three years, seeing people waiting at crosswalks for a signal was a shock, and in the first few months I was certainly scolded a few times for jaywalking. The book Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) has a very interesting chapter on jaywalking statistics and a variety of other traffic phenomena, and I would certainly recommend it to anyone curious about how cultural norms regarding transit are informed by legislation and infrastructure.
European is a very wide description. UK - you have right of way, almost everyone stops if you're near a crossing. Netherlands - cars stop in general - but watch out for bikes, because no cyclist will slow down for you, especially in parks with wide roads aka cycling highways. Belgium - no special treatment, some will stop some will assume you're going to be quick enough. A bit more to the east... Ukraine - treat road as a death zone.
At least that was my experience from bigger cities.
Having been brought up in the UK, I think this is one of the situations where we look at the rest of the world and think they are quite literally insane...
Why would you not have right of way on public roads? Everyone is a pedestrian at the end of the day!
That said, I found California's drivers surprisingly like those at home.
What is also interesting about the UK is how the laws are balanced.
UK:
- no concept of "jaywalking". Pedestrians have right of way.
- but no vehicular manslaughter/homicide laws. They even removed an old law called "reckless driving" due to being too hard to prove (it required proving state of mind).
- there are only specific offenses while using a vehicle "causing death by dangerous driving", "causing death by careless driving while unfit through alcohol/over prescribed limit" and a few others.
I was in Vietnam recently. To the westerner their city streets look chaotic and impossible to cross as most people get around by motorbike and there is rarely a gap in traffic. Though it turns out if you cross the road slowly and predictably, it's safer than crossing the street in any western cities. The motorbikes will just go around you or if that's not possible they'll stop. You have to be a little more careful of cars though.
Overall they seem to have little or no concept of anyone having right of way on the road (technically that doesn't apply here either but people seem to think they have right of way). Drivers just always have to be on alert.
Thanks for the stats. I am actually in Australia, which has even fewer fatalities (8 per 100,000 vehicles according to that link), which could probably be attributed to strong government advertising campaigns and enforcement of speed limits. We have a similar attitude towards pedestrians as the US and the penalty for killing someone while driving is a watered down culpable driving charge which only applies for dangerous driving, rather than manslaughter. Would be interesting to compare the crash rates still, but rather academic if the fatalities are so much higher.
In any case I maintain that crossing the road in the same manner we did in Vietnam would have you pancaked here on a busy road with cars travelling at 60 km/h. The difference is that people just don't do that here.
It's would help to get deaths per mile driven, too. Do Vietnamese cars drive more or less than Americans? My auto sits in my garage all year, quite safely.
Could certainly be factor. Though the other thing is that all those vehicles in Vietnam are motorbikes, so any accidents at speed are likely to be more fatal. Though for the original topic then pedestrian fatality stats would be useful as well.
In any case I'd personally rather live in a city that is well served by public transport rather than lots of people riding around on motorbikes or driving cars.
Over here in Europe, or possibly only Slovenia, we have a similar thing going on. If the driver does something stupid and plows into a pedestrian - that's manslaughter.
If an accident happens and they end up on the sidewalk ... well then it's not really anybody's fault. It was an accident.
I'm not sure why you would really want to press criminal charges against somebody who, following a difficult situation on the road, ended up unfortunately damaging someone.
However, if the person is on a crosswalk. Then it's the driver should be charged at least with manslaughter ... unless they're rear-ended or there's some other circumstance out of their control that made them unable to stop.
> I'm not sure why you would really want to press criminal charges against somebody who, following a difficult situation on the road, ended up unfortunately damaging someone.
I've been driving in New York City since I was 16. I'm 31 now. I've been in many difficult situations, even a major collision, but I've never found the need to plow into the sidewalk.
There are people out there who are cowards. By that, I mean they would rather risk harm to others than to themselves. When you are about to collide with another vehicle on the road, you do not swerve into the sidewalk. No. You take your chances with the collision.
People who endanger others for the sake of their own skin are trash and should be prosecuted. You use your driving expertise to stay on the road and if you do not have the skill-set to do that, you shouldn't be driving.
> You use your driving expertise to stay on the road and if you do not have the skill-set to do that, you shouldn't be driving.
Unfortunately, in most many places in North America you cannot function in society without a vehicle thus even if you know you shouldn't be drive the penalty is so great that almost all keep on driving. If there were reasonable alternatives like mass transportation then we could reasonably expect thus unqualified to use them, but in suburbia mass transit does not work.
To me this is as rediculous campaigns against drunk driving that don't push for local busses to operate until at least an hour after bars close.
tl;dr: one cannot reasonably expect people to behave responsibly without there being reasonable alternatives
Actually there is a reasonable alternative: Don't live in cities that fail to provide a reasonable alternative. A car is only a reasonable alternative in rural areas and as a mode of inter-city transport.
The answer to "society hasn't provided me with a convenient way to get around without a significant risk of killing someone" is not "oh wells! bad luck pedestrians!"
Where it comes to a situation where they might kill someone, I do expect people to behave responsibly.
So but it is more like "I can't get a job, or live where I can afford because I'm too easily distracted to be a good driver and I might kill someone, but it's that too likely since there are lots of shitty drivers and not that many people die and I don't really have alternatives."
I bus to work, but I wouldn't work minimum wage if all the good jobs required commuting; I'd just be another shitty driver. It's not selfish either, it's selfish of you to expect me to give up anything resembling a normal life to make you a little safer.
You should press charges not against the driver of the car who kills/injures a pedestrian (on the sidewalk), but the one that caused the accident - he's the ultimate reason why the person got killed/injured.
Perhaps I'm less on the semantic side of things, but you get tickets for violating the law, or penal code. The definition of criminal is (I'm guessing) 'person who breaks the law'.
I suspect that, in light of that, you get tickets for criminal behavior.
There are less criminal charges, for sure -- like driving at night without working headlights, but that still violates the law requiring you to maintain a safe and drivable vehicle, and is as such a criminal act.
There is a legal distinction between 'civil' and 'criminal' law. To oversimplify things, 'criminal' laws are ones that reflect some sort of moral code (e.g. laws against murder and manslaughter), and 'civil' laws are ones that are simply rules (e.g. speed limits, jaywalking). Civil cases can't be punished with jail time or anything like that.
I don't know that I'm yet convinced that speeding is a civil offense. Can you give me an example of a civil offense that I would get a ticket for? I have always thought of civil laws as those that corporations need to abide. Perhaps I'm wrong?
As for speed limits and jaywalking specifically, you appear to be right that they aren't criminal offenses until a threshold has been crossed (e.g., speeding 15 over the limit). But those seem to be considered 'infractions', and I admittedly don't know where the lines are.
In the US we have three kinds of charges: felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions.
Felonies are major criminal offenses. Misdemeanors are minor criminal offenses. Infractions are oopsies.
Most traffic charges are treated as infractions, even when they lead to levels of damage or injury that would ordinarily mean a misdemeanor or felony. Cars are somehow "special." If you want to get away with murder in the US, definitely use a car not a gun.
(But don't be drunk. Drunk driving is no longer socially acceptable -- if you're drunk and kill someone with your car, that's serious jail time. If you're just a bad driver and kill someone with your car, that's an oopsie.)
It's theoretically a felony charge in every state, but in practice, drivers who run over pedestrians or cyclists often get charged with traffic infractions or don't get charged at all.
It is indeed a criminal charge. By paying the ticket, you are submitting a guilty plea. A low-level charge, sure (depending on the ticket), but a charge nevertheless.
Just the findings that involve charges stemming from the penal code, and involve being found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt vs. the civil standard of a preponderance of evidence.
I live in Japan 1/2 time. Apparently, when a driver here hits a pedestrian or cyclist, he's got a lot of explaining to do.
As a result, the drivers are so attentive that it is not at all unusual on reasonably busy secondary routes to see a mother pedaling her bicycle with an infant in the basket and another small child following behind on a kids bike.
And like most parents, we let our son walk to school by himself from about 2d grade along a route where he had to cross some fairly major 4 lane streets.
I sometimes think it would be better to just remove the sidewalk and enforce a low speed restriction on roads. Sidewalks in the UK must cost a fortune, and often the roads without are more attractive (I'm thinking country/village lanes as opposed to motorways) .
The Netherlands has been doing this for decades. In the so-called woonerfs pedestrians and cyclists have priority over motorists. Ideally there are no curbs, signs or road markings, but a very low speed limit is enforced. Kids can play in the middle of the street. Sounds good to me.
In the US we have a weird property of our speed limits. The norm is for them to be under-posted. So a 45 mph road is usually one that you can (and in some circumstances, should) take at 50-55 mph. And on most of those roads, you won't get a ticket for going 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit, because that's the normal speed.
There are two problems with this. First, there are a lot of country roads that are properly posted, and the typical 5-10 over is seriously unsafe. I would rather increase speed limits where appropriate and enforce them.
Second, in urban areas, the limit is set for reasons not related to road safety, and those reasons are a lot less flexible. 10 mph over the typical urban speed limit (of 25 mph) is the difference between about a 15% chance of killing a pedestrian and a 65% chance.
The reality is that people don't respond strongly to posted speed limits. They just aren't enforced often enough for the posted limit to be a major consideration for most drivers. Traffic calming is far more effective (if also controversial).
I saw a study showing the best way to cut down on pedestrian deaths in residential areas was to eliminate the center line. When cars have to watch out for other cars they slow down and pay more attention.
I'm not implying anything, it just made me smile that the article on how jaywalking was introduced by a "conspiracy" of auto interests was written by Sarah Goodyear. Like, the plot thickens...
