> e.g. some distracted guy on his cell phone accidentially rushing out in front of some car, getting killed in the process and traumatizing some driver

I think this comment demonstrates the perverse value system I’m commenting against. I don’t mean this as an insult to you, merely to point out how people have been programmed to think people shouldn’t be able to live in a city without being terrified of their lives so we don’t mildly annoy drivers.

The scenario that would actually be likely to happen is the exact opposite. A distracted driver running over and killing a pedestrian that’s crossing on a green light or a zebra crossing. That happens very regularly.

Cars have no business driving faster than 15-20mph on a city steet.

> I think this comment demonstrates the perverse value system I’m commenting against. I don’t mean this as an insult to you, merely to point out how people have been programmed to think people shouldn’t be able to live in a city without being terrified of their lives so we don’t mildly annoy drivers.

It's not a perverse value system, it's acknowledging reality. Cars aren't going away anytime soon, because they provide real benefits. In a world with cars, pedestrians can't act like they did when cars didn't exist, laws or no.

No diver (with some homicidal exceptions) wants to hit a pedestrian, just like no pedestrian (with some suicidal exceptions) wants to get hit by a car. To minimize those kinds of events, both groups need to act in certain ways (with added motivation provided by penalties); it's objectively inferior to try to concentrate responsibly only on one group or the other.

> The scenario that would actually be likely to happen is the exact opposite. A distracted driver running over and killing a pedestrian that’s crossing on a green light or a zebra crossing. That happens very regularly.

Pedestrians shouldn't be crossing on a green light (in my city, there'd be a "don't walk" light in that case).

> Cars have no business driving faster than 15-20mph on a city streets.

Maybe in a dense city or a residential neighborhood (where I live streets with unposted limits are 25mph, which covers almost all residential streets), but it's a fact that other areas were built with arterial roads that need traffic to flow much faster.

Jaywalking is also the crime when the person is walking across the Autobahn wearing all black at night in a rainstorm.

Citation please.

> Cars have no business driving faster than 15-20mph on a city steet.

Where do you live where you think it is reasonable to set a speed limit below 35 mph?

Not GP but I live in Philly, a very dense walkable city. It is absolutely reasonable to set a speed limit below 35 mph on most of our streets. Especially in residential neighborhoods, but honestly ideally pretty much everywhere in Center City and a good distance away from there too.

EDIT: And in fact most of the residential streets here are 25 mph, and I think only that high because it's the minimum posted speed limit in the state of Pennsylvania. (I'd like to see that lowered personally, and more importantly some traffic calming that's actually effective.)

The UK has 20 mph limits in many residential areas, and they are often quite popular with (most) locals, who specifically ask for them.

In New Orleans unless otherwise marked, streets with a neutral ground (median) are 35mph and without are 25mph. I'm usually pretty happy with that arrangement as both a motorist and pedestrian.

The default speed limit throughout all of Manhattan is 25 mph.

91% of the streets in Portland have a speed limit of 30 mph or less.

How is it required? In Sweden jaywalking as a crime does not exist and vehicles are required to give way to pedestrians crossing the street.

The problems you describe seem absent from my experience living all my life in Sweden's second largest city with plenty of pedestrians and motor vehicles crossing the same streets.

I always thought it was my desire to live that keeps me from walking into traffic despite any "distractions", but now I learn from you it was the threat of a $250 fine all along.

> I always thought it was my desire to live that keeps me from walking into traffic despite any "distractions", but now I learn from you it was the threat of a $250 fine all along.

Actually, I don't think it's so much the fine itself but the sense that not crossing at a crosswalk is "wrong." The the laws against the behavior (and the penalties necessary for such a law) are there mainly to create that understanding.

Of course self-preservation is also a factor, but I'd wager the behavior is more effectively inhibited when it's not the only factor.

In New York city in recent years it was found that most jay walking tickets were handed out to minorities. Either white people are more intrinsically motivated or jay walking laws aren't the primary or even a substantial factor in pedestrian accidents.

Do you have a reason beyond your gut to believe jaywalking penalties work?

It also determines who is in the wrong. Cars normally have to yield to pedestrians and are usually presumed at fault if they hit one. The fine is just an extension of formalizing who has the right of way.

"Distracted walking" is pretty well discredited as a deadly scourge to society. Also, walking is travel, and restricting walking already makes travel more inefficient and inconvenient. So I'm gonna go with lowering speed limits.

A country without a general speed limit, and home to a couple of companies manufacturing fast cars, begs to differ. But then getting a driver's license here takes real education and practice.

Just a note for those unfamiliar with the concept of dead posts: To read that post you need to enable "showdead" or something with a similar name in your profile page.