> First, let's not forget that jaywalking is one of those "crimes" that is used as a pretense by police to harass people, usually young people and people of color.

"Walking while black"

Recently saw a courtroom video where a black man was being charged with marijuana possession. The reason for the initial stop was jaywalking, but the cop didn't even ticket him for the jaywalking, just used it as a justification for performing a search.

Judge threw the case out. Scolded the cop for clearly just wanting a reason to search a black man, evidenced by the lack of a ticket for the jaywalking.

And of course, it's just wild to me that in some states, you can get thrown in jail for YEARS for simple possession of a single nugget of marijuana, while in Oregon, my grocery store receipts literally have ads for marijuana dispensaries on the back.

Oregon is the most pro drug state in the country. Of course that’s the case here.

We see folks trying to take away the progress we made here. My county is trying to ban shroom companies. Very sad.

Yeah, and some of those pro-drug laws are likely going to be walked back.

To be honest, I'm not sure what has actually been happening. People claim hardcore drug (ie, cocaine, meth, etc., NOT marijuana) use has gotten worse, but I don't know if it's actually backed up by statistics.

I've always believed that drug possession and use should not be illegal, but that rehab programs should be well-funded and free, and only distribution of drugs should be criminal. Addicts are victims that need help, while sellers are enablers.

I get the impression that the decriminalization happened without the adequate health services to help people. Alternatively, many addicts simply don't want help.

But I openly admit that these opinions are based on feelings, and I don't know if drug use and the associated problems increased.

Yes yes, the person outside of a car must provide deference to the car owner. Poor people serve the rich.

It's not about class, it's about staying alive. Cars win any encounter, hands down. My rule of crossing streets is to assume I am invisible and the drivers are not aware of my existence. This is, IMO, the only safe rule to follow when crossing the paths of fast moving, multi-ton machines with only minimal requirements made of the driver.

But we're talking about writing laws here. For example:

>with only minimal requirements made of the driver.

could easily be changed by changing the requirements.

No law is going to physically protect you from a 2 ton hunk of steel.

Not so sure about that one.

Commercial drivers are involved in collisions less frequently, and the more stringent licensing requirements (i.e. a law) are probably helping with that.

Drivers knowing that they will get away with mowing down a pedestrian so long as they say they didn't see them is also going to encourage dangerous driving.

Most importantly, laws that promote safer street designs make a massive difference in pedestrian fatalities.

All this to say that: laws do protect people from 2ton hunks of steel.

> Drivers knowing that they will get away with mowing down a pedestrian so long as they say they didn't see them is also going to encourage dangerous driving.

This is silly. Nobody thinks this. ”Mowing down a pedestrian”, even if one has a perfect legal defense, would be incredibly traumatic even for the driver. Traffic rules ought to be engineered with practicality (physics, the limits of human cognition and visual perception, etc.) paramount.

If you have a point you can feel free to make a point instead on snidely putting words in someone else's mouth.

And where exactly do you live where only rich people drive cars?

Reddit tells everyone that only rich people drives cars.

Are you saying that car ownership is equally distributed even down to the poorest 1%?

Again, if you have a point to make then make the point. These leading questions, and putting words in other people's mouths, is silly and useless.

Of course they must. It's a two ton block of metal traveling at about 10 meters per second. Not yielding to the massive energetic slab of metal is quite simply irrational. Cars yield to trucks too. Anyone who doesn't has some kind of death wish. Some reality denying law doesn't really invalidate physics.

That's what always gets me with these "won't you think of the poor pedestrian" arguments. I never see people arguing for their god given right to stand in front a moving locomotive. Aircraft? Only time pedestrians are allowed anywhere near the runways where they accelerate is to board the plane. But somehow with cars it's alright. Dude walks in front of a train and it's suicide. Same dude walks in front of a car and it's murder.

> if a car has to hit their breaks even a little, or otherwise alter their trajectory, you're doing it wrong.

this is basically NYC law already, including pedestrian interactions

One time when I jaywalked in NYC I could have sworn that a cab, who was a half block away, accelerated when he saw me crossing the street. My impression has always been that people hate having their time wasted.

> My impression has always been that people hate having their time wasted.

They do. This is why pedestrians jaywalk to begin with. Can't be bothered to have their time wasted by the law.

"Second, as a veteran jaywalker, my rule of thumb is that if a car has to hit their breaks even a little, or otherwise alter their trajectory, you're doing it wrong."

You're doing it illegally in most places. If you imped the flow of traffic with the right of way, that's still an offense in most places. The article isn't clear if it's still a violation in NYC, but I bet it is.

I believe that was their point in calling themselves a veteran jaywalker. If it were a proper legal way of crossing given local laws, it is not jaywalking.

I brazenly break jaywalking laws every day and in every city I visit and will continue to do so.

Yea the herd mentality is why jaywalking is unethical. I've witnessed someone try to cross early, triggering literally ~20 people to follow, only for the light to change and everyone collectively realized they had no right of way and stepped back.

It's easy to see how this could result in tragedy.

Germany, Japan, there is strict social compliance so it feels right anyway.

It's a bit more subtle than that.

In Germany, crossing at a red light is very frowned upon. Many Germans even wait at a red pedestrian light in the middle of the night when there's zero traffic.

Crossing streets in places without pedestrian lights or designated crossings is very common, though, and I believe usually legal. (I certainly haven't heard of anybody being fined for it.)

> Germany, Japan, there is strict social compliance

There is quite a bit of historical evidence for this being really bad for society.

How're those places of low compliance doing recently?

Not great compared to places with obedient people.

Freedom can understandably clash with progress.

Imagine how much economic progress the world would have made if the axis had won the second world war. I hope I have made the point.

I don't know about ALL of Japan, but in Tokyo, pedestrians frequently ignore red lights and seeing cars with green lights waiting while a large group of jaywalkers is crossing in front of them is not an uncommon sight.

In Osaka, crossers formed a queue at the don't walk signal and crossed in an orderly fashion as soon as they got a walk -- not a moment before.

They knew that as soon as the auto traffic got a green, it would go full bore and seemingly not stop for anyone or anything.

Quite different from my time in Boston where the optimal strategy is to ignore the walk signal and cross when there was a significant gap in traffic -- because it's likely that several cars would attempt to make a turn while the walk signal was on, blowing your chance to cross anyway.

You might be talking about the intersection of Boylston and Tremont (if you went to a school by the common you know this light well). As a pedestrian it's a shitty light because of those drivers you're describing, as a driver it's a shitty intersection because the only time you can make the left turn is while pedestrians have the walk light, and that intersection is always so jam packed with people that you can wait multiple lights and still not be able to get through unless you're driving into the throngs of people. Boston is the worst place I've ever driven, in part because of the design of the streets and in part because of the god awful drivers.

That said, it's funny how much the culture of crossing illegally varies country to country and city to city. Having lived in a few northern cities and a few southern cities in the US, attitudes vary wildly. Where I currently live, people are very skittish about crosswalks in general and will usually wait for cars to go by, even if they have the right of way in the crossing. I would guess these behaviors are so culturally engrained that laws wouldn't make much of a difference.

I'm talking about many such intersections throughout Boston Metro, including the one you mentioned. The Boylston-Tremont intersection has the nice feature that walk signals appear in both directions at once, which I interpreted as license to cross diagonally.

Fun fact about that intersection vs many intersections. Most intersections around Boston will give pedestrians the walk light automatically on a cycle, and the "push to walk" buttons don't actually affect the cycle. At that intersection, you do need to press them to get the walk cycle. I once stood there for several cycles thinking how clever I was for knowing that the walk sign goes on automatically, staring at someone else across the intersection who was also standing there thinking how clever they were knowing that walk signs go on automatically before we both realized we were idiots and finally hit the walk button.

Traveling in Germany where there is a culture of biking and walking I found that jaywalking is never the less very much frowned upon by regular people and they see it as a transgression of norms.

As Germans like to say: the rules are the rules!

That heavily depends on where you are. I can't speak for everywhere, but in the cities I'm in it's fairly common to cross a red light or a road you're not supposed to cross.

One major confound is how the streets are designed and driving is prioritized. In the United States, many areas were redesigned in the 20th century under the assumption that nobody mattered as much as drivers so you have wide streets with long distances between crosswalks, short crossing signals, and long light cycles. Unsurprisingly many people jaywalk instead of walking half a mile or waiting so long. In contrast, if the area is reasonably designed it’s much more reasonable to use the streets as designed and it’s more reasonable to expect people to follow the rules.

I think that principle of respect shows up a lot in infrastructure. When it seems like it was designed for people to enjoy using you get much better results than the quasi-penal school of public architecture which is sadly common.

Having spent so many years in Japan I have found the same attitude about jaywalking. Though, there are crosswalks on long streets where pedestrians can wait and drivers are taught to stop at if someone is waiting to cross. I haven't seen much reason to jaywalk here in Japan.

It really depends on where you are in Japan (and each individual crosswalk). I've encountered plenty of places where jaywalking is necessary to save a long detour of a walk. Though those places are pretty clear of traffic. High traffic places where one might want to jaywalk? Pedestrian bridges are built there. So nice. I similarly find that at most crosswalk, most people stop for you. Also nice. The only not nice thing? At completely empty intersection on tiny little backroads, pedestrians STILL wait for the light to turn green. Thus making me look like some rebel if I boldly walk or bicycle across the absolutely empty intersection through a red light.

Germans have this "StVO" which regulates the rules in traffic and also what happens if you not follow them. Crossing a red light can result in a ticket, no matter whether you are a pedestrian or driving a car. Naturally, doing that in a car is a strict no-go, while pedestrians, if there is no car traffic, you will see them ignoring it. Still, they can be fined for doing so regardless whether there was car traffic or not. However, breaking the rules laid out in StVO is not a felony. It can become one if we talk about reckless driving which results in dead people.

Away (enough) from traffic lights, crossing streets is perfectly fine, but you have to watch the traffic. Walking on a street (i.e. not just crossing it) can be considered a "traffic hazard" (if there is any traffic to begin with) and may result in a fine as well. One thing clearly forbidden is crossing an Autobahn by foot which is why there are always bridges or tunnels to cross it, for pedestrians and other traffic alike.

hat's all very conscientious. You should also consider:

Forth, how many more people will be run over in NYC now?

There's also waiting 1-2 minutes for green light on a pedestrian semaphore while the street is entirely empty of cars. If no cops are in sight I definitely cross the street. Usually one or two people get encouraged and also cross but there's always the sticklers who would wait the end of the world if not given the green light.

> There's also waiting 1-2 minutes for green light on a pedestrian semaphore while the street is entirely empty of cars.

That's the way it works in Belgium: you wait sorry-out-of-luck for two minutes. Needless to say I've been raised (by myself) a jaywalker.. In neighboring Luxembourg you have the exact same traffic light, obviously built and sold by the very same company, looking identical except that the traffic light poles in Luxembourg have a button which pedestrian do press. And if there's no traffic, it becomes instantly green for the pedestrian. Actually even if there are cars, it'll very quickly turn green for pedestrians.

As a sidenote it is obviously safer to cross a street even though the signal is red for you while there are zero cars than to cross that same street when the signal is green for you and an incoming car is slowing down. I mean, I know, it's my right and the car should eventually stop. But I don't give a flying fuck about rights and fatality and rules if the car hits me.

I'll never stop jaywalking.

> First, let's not forget that jaywalking is one of those "crimes" that is used as a pretense by police to harass people, usually young people and people of color.

But let's also not pretend that decriminalizing jaywalking ends this harassment. In 2023, California decriminalized jaywalking when it's not dangerous to cross. But police have still used jaywalking as a pretense for stopping (and assaulting) people. https://missionlocal.org/2024/09/sf-violent-jaywalking-incid...

I don't know why you're downvoted, I think you are totally correct, but these changes to the laws do make it less simple for cops.

> But let's also not pretend that decriminalizing jaywalking ends this harassment

Can you show me a single person that thinks/says this

> rule of thumb is [...] trajectory [...] The goal should be smooth movement for all.

A more restrictive one is avoiding driver cognitive load and distraction. City driving can be exhausting. And attention budget allocated to one concern, is less available for that other thing that's about to unexpectedly bite.

> just because someone else is jaywalking does not mean you should follow them!

Another is attending to crossing as broadcast group communication. Manhattan pedestrians waiting at a light, will, quite reasonably, cue on the motion of others. Thus I might do a red-light crossing at a sprint-and-jog, solely to avoid misleading others with a "people are starting/walking across now" cue. Especially with tourists, and anyone with attention prioritized elsewhere.

Another is to threshold on benefit. Judgement errors will be made, so gate on the current case being worth that. There are people I can't comfortably walk with, because for low-payoff diagonizations, or avoiding a moment of red-light repose, they fountain social cognitive load with abandon. The pedestrian equivalent of car high-acceleration and speeding for negligible marginal progress.

As a Manhattan pedestrian, I think we are a poor example. When I lived in SF, where my jaywalking was much more aggressive than the norm, people would frequently follow me out into busy streets in unadvisable ways.

A follow-up of coincidence, fwiw: A couple of days after our conversation, a close friend stepped off the sidewalk, without this time checking the bike lane. Hip replacement recovery is expected to be some months.

I think I've read that narrow and cluttered roads which require the full attention of drivers are actually safer than wide and uncluttered roads because it instills a false sense of security and makes drivers more reckless. Perhaps having to look out for pedestrians all the time actually statistically improves safety.

I love hearing about this magical world where police harass random people for no reason. My experience in the city is police looking the other way when they shouldn't be. Everything from someone camping out in the middle of the sidewalk, illegal drug use in public, public urination and hopping turnstiles, just to list a few.

As a culture, we're pro jaywalking, which is fine, it should be legalized. You bare the risk entirely yourself if you choose to jaywalk. But let's not pretend like there is some overly strict police force that loves cracking skulls on any and every matter.

> I love hearing about this magical world where police harass random people for no reason.

Nothing random, magical, or pretend about it in the states. https://www.aclu.org/issues/racial-justice/race-and-criminal...

Talk to folks that don't share your skin tone. Make some friends. Ask them about their experiences, then judge for yourself.

You hear about it a lot because it's real and happens constantly, esp in past decades

I'm glad it hasn't happened to you.

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/s/IpRmakQfM7

>Second, as a veteran jaywalker, my rule of thumb is that if a car has to hit their breaks even a little, or otherwise alter their trajectory, you're doing it wrong. The goal should be smooth movement for all.

Generalize it more:

"If anyone else has to go out of their way to alter their trajectory to avoid you you're doing it wrong."

This applies to just about every road interaction between any two users regardless of type.

Surely by following that directive you're altering your trajectory? It can't work in both directions!

It's a clear right-of-way violation if your bad behavior forces someone with precedence to take action to avoid a collision. If you are a pedestrian, lawfully crossing in a designated place and time, you are the king of the road. Elsewhere you yield.

well, well, I'm not the best driver. almost hit one idiot in the dark. take it as a warning..