“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.”
Jaywalking is a-okay.
Negative. I was visiting Burbank CA from NYC. About 8 am on a nearly empty street. Going to get coffee I got a jaywalking ticket. I was shocked .
Depending on where you are and what you look like, don’t do it in front of cops, though.
At least not with your dick out.
Very true.
As long as no kids are around to watch you so they dont think they can just run out in the street whenever
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.”