“Jaywalking” is mostly a US thing made up by car companies to victim-blame pedestrians when they were killed by cars so they could avoid regulation themselves. Where I am we were taught very early in school how to safely cross a road safely, and pedestrians waiting to cross or already crossing a road generally have right of way even when no signals exist. It’s only an issue in backwards countries where cars have more rights than people and cities are designed for them instead.
I cross without a signal daily because otherwise I’d have to walk all the way around the block to get to a crossing going the opposite direction from where I’d want to go then find a way to circle all the way back at other crossings. That would make leaving the house more than a little inconvenient, especially since everything I’d need is in walking distance so I rarely drive. To my knowledge I have not been killed by a car a single time.
Edit: Thanks for the downvote, doesn’t change the facts.
The very word jaywalk is an interesting—and not historically neutral—one. Originally an insult against bumptious “jays” from the country who ineptly gamboled on city sidewalks, it was taken up by a coalition of pro-automobile interests in the 1920s, notes historian Peter D. Norton in his book Fighting Traffic. “Before the American city could be physically reconstructed to accommodate automobiles, its streets had to be socially reconstructed as places where cars belong,” he writes. “Until then, streets were regarded as public spaces, where practices that endangered or obstructed others (including pedestrians) were disreputable. Motorists’ claim to street space was therefore fragile, subject to restrictions that threatened to negate the advantages of car ownership.” And so, where newspapers like the New York Times once condemned the “slaughter of pedestrians” by cars and defended the right to midblock crossings—and where cities like Cincinnati weighed imposing speed “governors” for cars—after a few decades, the focus of attention had shifted from marauding motorists onto the reckless “jaywalker.”
That’ll help you win the case after you’re dead or injured for life, so that’s good!
I mean, you’d still be more likely to get hit and personally I’d think you’d want to avoid that, but if you accept that reality and are more concerned about financially benefiting (or your family benefiting, if you’re now a corpse) then this is sound logic!
I’ve never understood it myself, because I am the type that wants to do everything in my power to avoid being grievously injured to begin with even if it’s “the other guy’s fault,” but hey, different strokes.
Depends on where you’re at to some degree I suppose (especially because if there are no designated crosswalks then there is no “jaywalking” as the latter action is predicated on the former condition), though “being where the cars go vroom” is still more likely to get you hit by one than “not being where the cars go vroom” no matter what the area is zoned for.
Yet still, my point is “the right of way” isn’t some magic forcefield that prevents injury or death, but simply means that if you do get injured or dead someone will be charged with involuntary manslaughter about it and likely have to pay your family money. And again I’d say “cool but I’d rather be alive,” so for me the true advice isn’t “don’t worry the state will make sure your surviving family members get a little cash,” it’s “try not to get dead in the first place if you can avoid it.”
It’s bizarre to me that you fixate on what happens when you’re dead.
I’m more interested in the impact of the cultural component of drivers knowing that pedestrians can cross anywhere. I feel like that makes a huge difference. In countries where jaywalking laws exist, I imagine it’s dangerous to cross the road anywhere other than a pedestrian crossing. In countries where car companies never managed to get the government go along with victim-blaming pedestrians and so never enacted jay-walking laws I assume it’s much safer.
I’m in my late 50s, and have never worried about crossing urban roads, never come close to being mowed down by a car (a bicycle a couple of times, but never a car). I’ve lived everywhere from tiny villages to one of the biggest, angriest cities in the world, and it’s simply never been an issue.
You just look both ways and make sure any driver heading in your direction has made eye contact so you know they’ve seen you. Oftentimes they’ll wave you across.
I mean not really, to be fair not leaving your loved ones out to dry is a common thing to worry about, life insurance and inheritance being some of the largest examples. And y’know that whole eternal question deal.
But that is wholly unrelated to the fact that “the pedestrian has the right of way” directly means “so if you die, then you won’t be considered at fault,” but you’ll still be considered “dead.”
Even if your hypothesis is correct (that “pedestrians have the right of way” means drivers are more vigilant, btw citation needed), that’s all well and good, but it doesn’t mean you should lollygag in the street or cross irresponsibly simply because the law will be vewy angwy with the driver if they hit you, it’s still a good idea to take an active role in your safety, whether you’re legally required to or not.
I don’t “fixate on what happens when I’m dead,” I try to remain safe so I don’t “dead” from jumping in front of a 2,000+ lbs hunk of mostly plastic, and I’ve never understood the seemingly suicidal people who fall back on “well he’s not supposed to hit me.”
Well if you think people who live in countries with no jay-walking laws ‘lollygag in the street or cross irresponsibly’ or ‘[jump] in front of 2,000+ lbs hunk of mostly plastic’, I don’t know what to tell you. I guess we just live in countries with more personal freedom and a greater expectation of personal responsibility.
Again, we just look both ways and make sure any driver heading in your direction has made eye contact so you know they’ve seen you. My 10-year old walks to school on his own and crosses a road twice. I have 0% expectation that he’ll be hit by a car.
I’ve seen people do just that in person, and my state says pedestrians have the right of way.
I’ve seen people just walk out into the street without looking at all; people who look but then still step out forcing a driver (who they should have waited for) to slam on the breaks; people who (in contrast to those kind enough to speedwalk a little and get out of the car’s way) will walk slowly as they can while defiantly looking at the waiting car as if to say “do it, hit me” while the car waits on patiently; people who literally just hang out in the street drinking beer; people crossing just after a blind curve on a higher speed street; and more general unsafe dumbassery I’m sure I’m forgetting.
Sure, most of the above is allowed (minus the beer) legally, and yes as you have pointed out if the driver hits them they’ll be held criminally liable, but it’s still putting yourself in a dangerous position regardless of criminal or civil liability. People who “had the right of way” die every day, literally, the right of way only helps their families in the court case.
And sure, maybe that only happens everywhere I’ve ever been across two different (large, not European) countries but that’d be a pretty big coincidence so I’m more inclined to believe your confirmation bias has you simply not noticing that it happens around you, too. Or maybe everyone in your country really is more civilized and better than others, yay nationalism or whatever.
Just remember that even if you have the right of way all it takes is one distracted driver to smoke your ass and you should still be careful if your priority is staying alive, if your priority is who has the right of way or who will be determined at fault for the accident have fun I suppose.
Especially if you want a free Darwin award.
“Jaywalking” is mostly a US thing made up by car companies to victim-blame pedestrians when they were killed by cars so they could avoid regulation themselves. Where I am we were taught very early in school how to safely cross a road safely, and pedestrians waiting to cross or already crossing a road generally have right of way even when no signals exist. It’s only an issue in backwards countries where cars have more rights than people and cities are designed for them instead.
I cross without a signal daily because otherwise I’d have to walk all the way around the block to get to a crossing going the opposite direction from where I’d want to go then find a way to circle all the way back at other crossings. That would make leaving the house more than a little inconvenient, especially since everything I’d need is in walking distance so I rarely drive. To my knowledge I have not been killed by a car a single time.
Edit: Thanks for the downvote, doesn’t change the facts.
Tom Vanderbilt, Slate.com
Fucking beautiful capstone on this otherwise great post.
Exactly. I had to look up what Jaywalking was, I’d never heard of it before.
In my country pedestrians always have right of way except on motorways.
That’ll help you win the case after you’re dead or injured for life, so that’s good!
I mean, you’d still be more likely to get hit and personally I’d think you’d want to avoid that, but if you accept that reality and are more concerned about financially benefiting (or your family benefiting, if you’re now a corpse) then this is sound logic!
I’ve never understood it myself, because I am the type that wants to do everything in my power to avoid being grievously injured to begin with even if it’s “the other guy’s fault,” but hey, different strokes.
In most residential areas there are no designated crossings.
And drivers here have an expectation that pedestrians may try and cross the road at any moment so perhaps they’re all more aware.
I’m not sure how finances fit into this cultural difference.
Depends on where you’re at to some degree I suppose (especially because if there are no designated crosswalks then there is no “jaywalking” as the latter action is predicated on the former condition), though “being where the cars go vroom” is still more likely to get you hit by one than “not being where the cars go vroom” no matter what the area is zoned for.
Yet still, my point is “the right of way” isn’t some magic forcefield that prevents injury or death, but simply means that if you do get injured or dead someone will be charged with involuntary manslaughter about it and likely have to pay your family money. And again I’d say “cool but I’d rather be alive,” so for me the true advice isn’t “don’t worry the state will make sure your surviving family members get a little cash,” it’s “try not to get dead in the first place if you can avoid it.”
It’s bizarre to me that you fixate on what happens when you’re dead.
I’m more interested in the impact of the cultural component of drivers knowing that pedestrians can cross anywhere. I feel like that makes a huge difference. In countries where jaywalking laws exist, I imagine it’s dangerous to cross the road anywhere other than a pedestrian crossing. In countries where car companies never managed to get the government go along with victim-blaming pedestrians and so never enacted jay-walking laws I assume it’s much safer.
I’m in my late 50s, and have never worried about crossing urban roads, never come close to being mowed down by a car (a bicycle a couple of times, but never a car). I’ve lived everywhere from tiny villages to one of the biggest, angriest cities in the world, and it’s simply never been an issue.
You just look both ways and make sure any driver heading in your direction has made eye contact so you know they’ve seen you. Oftentimes they’ll wave you across.
I mean not really, to be fair not leaving your loved ones out to dry is a common thing to worry about, life insurance and inheritance being some of the largest examples. And y’know that whole eternal question deal.
But that is wholly unrelated to the fact that “the pedestrian has the right of way” directly means “so if you die, then you won’t be considered at fault,” but you’ll still be considered “dead.”
Even if your hypothesis is correct (that “pedestrians have the right of way” means drivers are more vigilant, btw citation needed), that’s all well and good, but it doesn’t mean you should lollygag in the street or cross irresponsibly simply because the law will be vewy angwy with the driver if they hit you, it’s still a good idea to take an active role in your safety, whether you’re legally required to or not.
I don’t “fixate on what happens when I’m dead,” I try to remain safe so I don’t “dead” from jumping in front of a 2,000+ lbs hunk of mostly plastic, and I’ve never understood the seemingly suicidal people who fall back on “well he’s not supposed to hit me.”
Well if you think people who live in countries with no jay-walking laws ‘lollygag in the street or cross irresponsibly’ or ‘[jump] in front of 2,000+ lbs hunk of mostly plastic’, I don’t know what to tell you. I guess we just live in countries with more personal freedom and a greater expectation of personal responsibility.
Again, we just look both ways and make sure any driver heading in your direction has made eye contact so you know they’ve seen you. My 10-year old walks to school on his own and crosses a road twice. I have 0% expectation that he’ll be hit by a car.
I’ve seen people do just that in person, and my state says pedestrians have the right of way.
I’ve seen people just walk out into the street without looking at all; people who look but then still step out forcing a driver (who they should have waited for) to slam on the breaks; people who (in contrast to those kind enough to speedwalk a little and get out of the car’s way) will walk slowly as they can while defiantly looking at the waiting car as if to say “do it, hit me” while the car waits on patiently; people who literally just hang out in the street drinking beer; people crossing just after a blind curve on a higher speed street; and more general unsafe dumbassery I’m sure I’m forgetting.
Sure, most of the above is allowed (minus the beer) legally, and yes as you have pointed out if the driver hits them they’ll be held criminally liable, but it’s still putting yourself in a dangerous position regardless of criminal or civil liability. People who “had the right of way” die every day, literally, the right of way only helps their families in the court case.
And sure, maybe that only happens everywhere I’ve ever been across two different (large, not European) countries but that’d be a pretty big coincidence so I’m more inclined to believe your confirmation bias has you simply not noticing that it happens around you, too. Or maybe everyone in your country really is more civilized and better than others, yay nationalism or whatever.
Just remember that even if you have the right of way all it takes is one distracted driver to smoke your ass and you should still be careful if your priority is staying alive, if your priority is who has the right of way or who will be determined at fault for the accident have fun I suppose.