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.
What you seem to be saying in this comment is that, despite crushingly authoritarian laws prohibiting jaywalking, people in your state are just arseholes who deliberately try to get hit by a car? Or, maybe you’re saying that people in countries with jay-walking laws are more likely to be suicidal, because this is behavior you’ve seen in person?
I don’t quite understand what your point is any more. I’ve never been hit by a car. No-one I know has ever been hit by a car (except one friend who bounced off the hood of a Ferrari but - by his own admission - that was entirely his own fault).
The fact that pedestrians have right of way here seems to mean drivers (I’m a driver too) are more inclined to anticipate hazards - including pedestrians - than in a country where pedestrians have no freedom. We do hazard awareness testing as part of our driver licensing programme. And - duh! - of course we’re careful crossing the street.
But you still seem to be utterly fixated on the ‘determined at fault’ thing. Who is at fault is irrelevant when people aren’t being mowed down by Bubba Joe in his Mustang racing between the lights.
I mentioned my state having laws saying pedestrians have the right of way, are these the crushingly authoritarian laws of which you speak, or are you fantasizing?
In any case, yes, pedestrians who indeed have the right of way in my state often (not all every single one every time you ever see a person, but often enough to have noted it being an issue, what is this “all do or all don’t” black/white thinking?) do indeed act like complete morons, what’s more when you ask these idiots why, they, like you, reply “I have the right of way” most of the time, and again I’ve never understood you people who care more for legal culpability than your own safety. This really isn’t as hard to understand as you’re pretending it is.
except one friend who bounced off the hood of a Ferrari but - by his own admission - that was entirely his own fault
But he had the right of way which is what is important! Don’t let his safety be his concern, nor yours.
Drivers always have to be careful of hazards, whether they’re deer or humans who are too stupid to look both ways, it happens all too often. Most drivers don’t want to hit a deer or a human regardless of legal culpability, if you’re incapable of believing humans can have empathy for things hit by cars, then even still you must admit they would want to avoid damage to their car, in all but the most extreme cases like Bastille day 2016 (don’t think he particularly cared who had the right of way anyway, however.)
The “determined at fault” thing is literally “right of way.” What do you think that means?
The right of way for pedestrians refers to the legal rules that determine when pedestrians can cross the street and when vehicles must yield to them. Generally, pedestrians have the right of way at marked and unmarked crosswalks, but they must also follow traffic signals and not enter the roadway unexpectedly.
Literally all that means is that legally you can cross where/when specified, which in practice means that if someone hits you they will be found at fault. It does not guarantee safety. The entire phrase “right of way” is legal jargon, for the legal system which determines who is at fault for what. What the fuck do you mean “fixated on determining fault” that is the entire point of the phrase you wrote in the comment I initially replied to, in which you were arguing someone who said one could “win the darwin award” (i.e die) for crossing the street irresponsibly. Am I the only one reading this thread or something?
It’s not a strawman, your reaction to “might die” was “right of way” not “well be safe about it.” Again, right of way is merely a means of standardizing legal culpability, not a means of safety. Ergo, more concerned with legal culpability than safety.
Then it’s just me because you clearly haven’t been reading it.
Btw you ever find that data to back up your fantasy that right of way laws actually affect drivers safety consciousness? 'Cause I still doubt your premise and I asked about it like ten replies ago. If you have none still, I’m done with this conversation.
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.
What you seem to be saying in this comment is that, despite crushingly authoritarian laws prohibiting jaywalking, people in your state are just arseholes who deliberately try to get hit by a car? Or, maybe you’re saying that people in countries with jay-walking laws are more likely to be suicidal, because this is behavior you’ve seen in person?
I don’t quite understand what your point is any more. I’ve never been hit by a car. No-one I know has ever been hit by a car (except one friend who bounced off the hood of a Ferrari but - by his own admission - that was entirely his own fault).
The fact that pedestrians have right of way here seems to mean drivers (I’m a driver too) are more inclined to anticipate hazards - including pedestrians - than in a country where pedestrians have no freedom. We do hazard awareness testing as part of our driver licensing programme. And - duh! - of course we’re careful crossing the street.
But you still seem to be utterly fixated on the ‘determined at fault’ thing. Who is at fault is irrelevant when people aren’t being mowed down by Bubba Joe in his Mustang racing between the lights.
I mentioned my state having laws saying pedestrians have the right of way, are these the crushingly authoritarian laws of which you speak, or are you fantasizing?
In any case, yes, pedestrians who indeed have the right of way in my state often (not all every single one every time you ever see a person, but often enough to have noted it being an issue, what is this “all do or all don’t” black/white thinking?) do indeed act like complete morons, what’s more when you ask these idiots why, they, like you, reply “I have the right of way” most of the time, and again I’ve never understood you people who care more for legal culpability than your own safety. This really isn’t as hard to understand as you’re pretending it is.
But he had the right of way which is what is important! Don’t let his safety be his concern, nor yours.
Drivers always have to be careful of hazards, whether they’re deer or humans who are too stupid to look both ways, it happens all too often. Most drivers don’t want to hit a deer or a human regardless of legal culpability, if you’re incapable of believing humans can have empathy for things hit by cars, then even still you must admit they would want to avoid damage to their car, in all but the most extreme cases like Bastille day 2016 (don’t think he particularly cared who had the right of way anyway, however.)
The “determined at fault” thing is literally “right of way.” What do you think that means?
Literally all that means is that legally you can cross where/when specified, which in practice means that if someone hits you they will be found at fault. It does not guarantee safety. The entire phrase “right of way” is legal jargon, for the legal system which determines who is at fault for what. What the fuck do you mean “fixated on determining fault” that is the entire point of the phrase you wrote in the comment I initially replied to, in which you were arguing someone who said one could “win the darwin award” (i.e die) for crossing the street irresponsibly. Am I the only one reading this thread or something?
So your state doesn’t recognise jay-walking as a crime? Cool.
You’re arguing with a straw man.
I reckon it’s just the two of us at this point.
It’s not a strawman, your reaction to “might die” was “right of way” not “well be safe about it.” Again, right of way is merely a means of standardizing legal culpability, not a means of safety. Ergo, more concerned with legal culpability than safety.
Then it’s just me because you clearly haven’t been reading it.
Btw you ever find that data to back up your fantasy that right of way laws actually affect drivers safety consciousness? 'Cause I still doubt your premise and I asked about it like ten replies ago. If you have none still, I’m done with this conversation.