Or you could just use the damn crosswalk that was put there for your safety. Don't you think that is a bit more sensible than bringing vehicular homicide charges every time some idiot steps out into traffic? Or were you actually seriously comparing an accident to a rape?
Dad always told me, whether it was a law or not, it was always a good idea to carry ID so they can identify your body easier.
Just pointing out that it is the same logic -- the victim's behavior puts her at risk, therefore that behavior should not be allowed. People need to be sensible, but the origin of jaywalking laws is protecting drivers from liability. Instead we should demand accountability.
It's not the same. Rape is a predatory action. Stepping out into traffic is inherently dangerous no matter how much accountability you put on the drivers. When a pedestrian is hit by a car, it does not necessarily mean the driver was negligent. When a woman gets raped, the rapist is always solely to blame.
Point taken. But the thought process on jaywalking still involves punishing a behavior that may or may not be safe, just because sometimes it leads to injury or death. A dangerous dart across a busy street, perhaps that deserves a ticket*. But the rest of the time? Definitely not. * I am not suggesting that the presence of vehicles means a pedestrian should take the lower priority, just that there could be an instance of reckless behavior.
Was it necessary to add floating captions listing everything they had eaten that day? Poor form Noodles.
In busy downtown areas there are always pedestrians around. If I thought I might be charged with vehicular homicide if one of them decided to dart out in front of me at the last second I wouldn't risk driving. Pedestrians should obey the rules of the road like drivers and bicyclists. The people getting hit by cars the most are the ones not paying attention and stepping out in front of a car that is half way through an intersection on a green light. Charging the driver in a case like that is ridiculous. The jaywalker should have to pay for any damage they caused the car if they live.
Agree, whoever is at fault should be held accountable. But we don't ticket cars for driving through an intersection just because somebody else might need to pass perpendicular. My point is that the ticketing is for something that should be left to the discretion of the pedestrian. Pedestrians and cyclists who pay no attention to cars are fools and get what they deserve, but the rule should be that they pay attention and follow safety practices, not that they can arbitrarily be blocked from usage.
We do ticket cars for running red lights. So what is wrong with ticketing pedestrians for walking when they don't have a walk sign? I think Jaywalking should have set hours of enforcement during high traffic times because there is no need to make people stand there at an empty intersection at night. However during rush hours I don't want the pedestrians to have the mindset that they can just go whenever they thinks its okay to go. It would make traffic exponentially worse to do that.
I guess I have a bias based on the way things work in Boston, which is that cars block the intersection, run red lights, and generally behave in a manner that doesn't provide a pedestrian with a specified window. So we just cross when the opportunity is there, whether or not we have a walk signal or a cross walk.
The cops here have cracked down on jaywalking in some parts of town due to a rash of people not using crosswalks and getting themselves hurt or killed. I'm talking places where the street is five lanes wide and the speed limit is 45mph. Downtown, I think they mostly ignore it, which is good because I'd be ticketed all the time.
To be fair I may talk a big game but I jaywalk a few times a week at a minimum. During my lunch hour I can either stand at an empty intersection or go ahead and walk across it. Unless the walk sign happens to line up with when I reach the intersection I'm usually jaywalking. Of course I don't do it in front of cops, but that is just common sense given it's common knowledge that they are ticketing it heavily.
If the building where I need to go is across the street from where I had to park, I'm not toting all my gear to the intersection to where the crosswalk is. Similarly, if I'm at the crosswalk and I need to be somewhere at a certain time, I'm crossing against the light as long as there aren't any cars close to the intersection. When our police HQ was at its old location, almost all of the available parking was across the street from it.
This conversation is hilarious from my perspective. I do not know a single person in Boston who would ever walk to the corner to cross unless he had to go that far anyway. And I don't know a single person who would wait for the walk single if there was a break in traffic.
For a long time pedestrian movement was barely touched on in traffic engineering classes. Thus peds were an afterthought when conducting signal timing. Even in ped heavy areas you'll have lights optimized to move traffic through as fast as possible and then not even have a cycle for peds, just a button you push and wait 2 minutes, then walk to the next block, push, wait. In those environments I can totally see jaywalking being both common and dangerous. It's a problem that can only be solved by (city)DOT not (city)PD.
What if the nearest crosswalk is 1/2 mile or more away? I feel sorry for homeless here in Augusta that have to push their shopping cart full of worldly possessions while they cross eight lanes of fast traffic.
Sounds like France. Whereas what some of these guys are saying about Texas sounds like Germany. French people tend to get in trouble in Germany for things like jaywalking.
I'm with Gul. One of the first things you learn when you move around a city on foot is not to pay any attention to the walk/don't walk signs. You cross when it's safe to do so, not when the sign says it's okay.
Yeah, it's the Daily Mail, but this made my Facebook feed this morning (the apology is a couple of days old). According to the link to the Austin paper in the article, the police were working the jaywalking so much that day because neighborhood residents had complained about it. Still, the chief is an asshole.
You always hear this shit, you always hear "neighborhood residents complained". Who are these people? I see jaywalking, I don't give a shit. I see a guy cutting off mattress tags, I don't give a shit. Hell, I see a guy eating grapes at the grocery store, I don't give a shit. Who the hell sees this stuff, and is like "nyyeeaahh, poliiiice, poliiiiice, doooo somethiiiing, myeeaahhh. ". What mentality is that? These are usually the same people by the way, when a REAL crime happens, sit there and watch. You always hear about like, a guy who drives his wife's eyes out with car keys, or a guy kicks an old man to death like he was a store dummy, and everyone just watches. Where were ya then, Nervous Nancy? Ugh. No wonder people drink.
You want to enforce Jaywalking laws, write the person a ticket. You don't fucking haul them off to jail!
Not taking law enforcement's side by any means - but if you really want to make sure people get the message, tickets don't mean shit. Jail is the only thing that gets some peoples attention. Lose a few days of work, get your picture in the Jail Report, have to hire a lawyer, etc. etc. works every time. And you can't save money by getting a public defender unless you're too poor to bond out. So if you've got more time than money, sit it out until the jail gets sick of you and sends you home.
For a certain percentage of the population, jail is "no big deal." I had a former coworker who worked at the county jail, and according to him there were a number of people who were "Saturday night regulars." They'd get picked up on a public drunkenness on a routine basis. They never gave anybody any trouble, but sitting in the pokey didn't discourage them from drinking, either. I also know of people who've chosen to serve their time in jail (since it'd be only a few days) rather than plead "Not Guilty" because they figured that it'd be faster and cheaper than trying to fight their arrest.
Sadly there are people who will be in and out of jail countless times for petty shit. Generally they are dead-enders who will never get a job above washing dishes. Why should they quit drinking? Their lives will never get better anyway. Those are the people with more time than money. But arrest someone who has a lot to lose (like a career or security clearance) and it's a whole different thing.
Except that the folks most likely to be arrested for any crime are poor and black, so its less likely to be seen as a deterrent and more like SSDD (Same Shit, Different Day).
