Let's not forget that jaywalking was essentially created by the automotive industry and its lobbyists, to make life more convenient for drivers. It started in car-heavy places like California, and eventually became a law virtually everywhere in the US, but was never really enforced in New York City, where most people walk or take public transit, rather than drive. If, like most New Yorkers, you walk several kilometers a day, through dozens of intersections, it's ludicrous to suggest that you should only walk at crosswalks, and only when the walk sign is lit. New Yorkers don't have a concept of "jaywalking"; it's just "walking."
>New Yorkers don't have a concept of "jaywalking"; it's just "walking."
It's also not a word in the German language at all, it's just "crossing the road". If you do it safely grate, if you don't not grate and if there are children nearby unsafe road crossing is really something you shouldn't do, especially it it's just because you are to lazy to walk a small bit more (I think crossing a road close by a pedestrian crossing while you aren't allowed to cross it is also the only way it is illegal outside of the case of "you action counting as endangering you or others" (like actually endangering not some absurd twisting of definitions)).
At the same time, a great deal of pedestrian crossings is not marked for cars at all, and only at most hinted towards for pedestrians. Sometimes there is a small pedestrian crossing sign painted on the road facing the sidewalk, sometimes there's just a slight decline in the curbside on both sides. I guess that this is some legal loophole to give cars priority, since legally they have to stop if someone wants to cross the street on a marked crossing with no traffic lights.
It's cultural, being a foreigner in Germany, you always get told to comply to rules. I couldn't care less about it and just shrug it off.
Honestly, some cities are really hostile to pedestrians with barely any crossings. I don't care if there are children around.
In Vienna, which has very good public transport and a large walking population, there is a strong culture against jaywalking. Locals will wait at the crosswalk sign even on minor roads with no traffic. Having lived in New York, London, and other places, I've never seen anything like it.
>New Yorkers don't have a concept of "jaywalking"; it's just "walking."
As a general rule, I watch the cars and not the traffic lights. Mostly because many motorists (and NYC buses are the worst!) often don't pay attention to pedestrians, intersections or traffic lights. In fact, I'm more careful when walking through an intersection than in the middle of the street.
New York is probably the only place in the US where most of the drivers did not learn to drive here.
It's the most international city in the US, and a disproportionate number of people who use the roads (taxis, delivery drivers, etc) grew up in places that have a traffic system very different that the US's. People in New York routinely run red lights, roll through crosswalks, ride in the shoulder - things that you might encounter in other countries, but are generally considered disrespectful/dangerous in the US. When so many drivers grew up driving in places that tolerate those behaviors (either in their home countries or as native New Yorkers), it creates a road culture that's very different than you'd expect in other parts of America.
In other cities, you can take a "trust but verify" approach to traffic. Drivers will respect traffic lights. Pedestrians will cross where they're meant to. People will (only) use the lanes painted on the road. You have to be alert in case an outlier does something differently, but we generally consider those people selfish exceptions.
The written rules and the practiced culture deviate immensely in New York. You can't just operate by the rules and expect that everyone else will too.
Its just an assumption that all people on the roads are having 100% focus on whole surrounding situation, 100% of the time. If you drive a bit as the only parent in the car with 2+ small kids, you know that ain't true, and yes complex intersections are one of the worst places.
Plus you have literal a-holes who ignore traffic rules on purpose, which in place where I live (Switzerland) is maybe 80% of the cyclists. I've had few near miss (5cm max) as a pedestrian where cyclist with red light zoomed through thick crowd crossing without even slowing down. Bear in mind that >=30kmh hit of pedestrian can easily end up in fatality or permanent disability, when wife worked on urgency in biggest hospital around here, there were some dead pedestrians from such collisions.
Amsterdam is just like New York (New Amsterdam!) in that pedestrians (and bikes) cross wherever they like. Next up: in Amsterdam most bikes and pedestrians will not wait for a red light on small crossings when they can see there is no oncoming traffic. Technically illegal but I've never heard of anyone being fined. No harm no foul. But I guess the large intersections in New York make it trickier to estimate whether that's safe to do.
To join the voice to the other non-US folks, in the Southern Europe no one cares, we just cross the road regardless the colour.
Usually it is only respected in high traffic roads, unless one wants to play frogger in real life.
And while there are technically fines, like 10 €, in practice the police has more usefull things to worry about and unless you get an officer having a bad day and someone has to pay for it, they won't care.
I think so. I live in a fairly big city and it's the same here. Excellent public transport, not so many cars around. Walking to the subway station is already 600m. Inside the subway system one can walk a lot for connecting lines. Even if I did have a car it would be a few blocks away in some parking garage. It's not like we have car ports or driveways here.
3 km is only 1.9 miles, or just over half an hour of walking for most people. If you have a 0.95 mile commute you've already hit the several kilometers per day bar.
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.
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.
Third, just because someone else is jaywalking does not mean you should follow them! Always asses your own path because someone else may be timing it differently.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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...
>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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Surprisingly the word jaywalking comes from jay-driving which was coined to describe drivers driving on the wrong side of the road. Initially the term jaywalking really only applied to poor etiquette when walking on the sidewalk.
Since they made this change in California last year, I cross where ever when it is safe and convenient. I'm surprised how big of difference it made to the convenience and speed of walking somewhere. No more waiting for 2 different lights just to get to the opposite corner.
I had to look this up. "Safe jaywalking" is legal in California, but if you risk a collision, you can be cited.
----------
VC 21955. (a) Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.
(b)
(1) A peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation of subdivision (a) unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power.
(2) This subdivision does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety.
(3) This subdivision does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the roadway.
As a veteran jaywalker, let me propose that you avoid crossing at junctions, where crossings are usually located, ideally cross at one leg, especially good if it’s a one way street.
Less traffic, fewer inputs/outputs to keep under observations.
Where I live, just about all of the downtown streets are one-ways and it does wonders for getting around both on foot and in an automobile. Though the latter will be more punishing if you don't know the lay of the land, and there will be congestion near on-ramps during rush hour.
>waiting for 2 different lights just to get to the opposite corner.
A solution sometimes seen in London is a “Pedestrian Scramble”, where pedestrians are explicitly given full (and even diagonal) access to a junction with all other traffic stopped.
In Seattle, they call these "all walks" or officially, "all way walks." I love them, since I don't feel like I have to watch out for drivers making left turns.
The dichotomy is pretty interesting to me, given that most major cities in the country have been running high-publicity programs for the last decade to do everything possible to reduce car-related deaths, especially protecting pedestrians and bicyclists. (Cities like NYC and Seattle call it "vision zero", a vision of zero serious traffic injuries/deaths). They work to separate pedestrians and bicyclists from traffic, slow cars down with "traffic calming measures", lower speed limits, and so on.
Those stated goals seem, to me, to clash with the idea of now making it up to people's discretion to cross roads wherever and whenever they want, rather than at dedicated, marked, predictable, traffic crossings equipped with signal lights that tell cars and pedestrians who has the right of way.
I'm curious in X years if the data will or will not show more pedestrians got hit by cars following this change.
Partially it's because this is a false dichotomy. The most efficient and safe system isn't something that erects permanent barriers between pedestrians and cars – because a system like this creates ugly cities and undesirable walking, cycling, and driving conditions – it's something that allows them to coexist safely, generally by making them slower, more visible, and more predictable.
I walk/run, drive, and cycle in NYC. In my view, the way NYC works in most intersections and roads is pretty close to maximally efficient. And it generally gets better over time, although it has occasionally gotten worse in the name of safety.
The things that make it that way include (1) mostly one-way roads, which makes jaywalking significantly easier and safer (2) mostly single-lane or dual-lane roads (3) well-tuned traffic lights with relatively brief cycles (4) relatively low speed limits that are brutally enforced with speed traps (5) an abundance of red light cameras.
The least safe parts of the city are those with more than 2 lanes of traffic, especially if it's bi-directional, and those with really poorly designed cycling infrastructure. My pet peeve roads are the ones that look like this:
| sidewalk | cycle lane | parking spots | road |
e.g. Grand St in Williamsburg, because this design makes jay-walking extremely dangerous. and it makes cyclists go faster than they otherwise-would, because of the (occasionally-enough-to-be-dangerous false) sense of being insulated from both pedestrians and cars.
The other major source of risks, again IME, are cyclists going counter-traffic on one-way roads, and people on electric-assisted bikes in general traveling >20mph.
There is a question of critical mass that you see in cities that are built around the concept of pedestrians first. Cars go slower, give right of way to pedestrians and generally don't drive as aggressively as we see in most North American cities.
In Europe you see plenty of places that are pedestrian first and the car drivers are expected to act differently as a result. Something similar happens in Amsterdam where it is a cyclist first city. Cyclists expect right of way and cars are few and far between.
So long as you go about thinking of this in terms of car first as a de facto part of life you won't understand how good it could be with less cars.
It's more of an acceptance of reality. Pedestrians in NYC cross however they want and police only ever intervene if they're doing something excessively dangerous (which I believe is still illegal) or if they're looking for a excuse to harass someone. It's the latter they are trying to eliminate. This will likely have no impact on road safety and slightly reduce the number of people getting hassled by police.
There's also the balance of power that NYC is actually mostly pedestrian. Anything that empowers pedestrians and inhibits cars is a net win for freedom of movement.
Maybe there's some negative American exceptionalism here (the idea that what works in other countries can't work in the US because reasons) but many other countries have no jaywalking laws or much more lax versions (e.g. only applies to motorways) and have much lower pedestrian deaths than the US. Road safety is a cultural thing and relates to how unequal a person's rights are based on their mode of transport.
Growing up in the UK, which is car-centric but not as much as the US, jaywalking was an alien term and concept. I remember being confused by the concept when I first visited the US. In the UK there be many crossing with or without lights and regular traffic islands for pedestrians. You get used to crossing the road without signal controlled crossing. And yet the vehicle death rate in the UK is 4 times lower per 100,000 population than the US, 2 times lower per distance driven and the pedestrian death rate is 5 times lower.
Agreed, growing up in Portugal, I had no idea about the concept. Cars even stop for you here outside of crosswalks. When I moved to London UK, I was surprised how wild things were there. Jaywalking is just part of the city.
But I love that way. I think the alternative is just fascism. The idea that pedestrians are illegal if they don’t use a crosswalk seems insane to me.
>The dichotomy is pretty interesting to me, given that most major cities in the country have been running high-publicity programs for the last decade to do everything possible to reduce car-related deaths, especially protecting pedestrians and bicyclists. (Cities like NYC and Seattle call it "vision zero", a vision of zero serious traffic injuries/deaths). They work to separate pedestrians and bicyclists from traffic, slow cars down with "traffic calming measures", lower speed limits, and so on.
Those sorts of measures have been shown to have negative impact on people's behaviour.
If drivers think vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians are segregated away, they'll drive at higher speeds.
Pedestrians may start to assume that it's always safe for them to walk in certain places without looking.
On the other hand, if you have a system in place where people know that traffic does mix, there will be a lot more caution from all road users.
I was in Morocco this summer, and for the most part, there is no separation between where motorbikes can ride and pedestrians can walk. It's totally intermixed.
At first I was concerned, but then I realized it's actually a lot safe. The motorbikes were cautious because there could be a pedestrian at any turn. And the pedestrians were cautious because there could be a motorbike at any moment.
Didn't see a single accident or even any near misses.
In NYC it's not so much the cars that are the problem as the bikes. I've never ever had a problem jaywalking to my heart's content in NYC, and I've done it lots and lots. But when those bike lanes started sprouting up everywhere suddenly it became much more dangerous because it's very easy to forget about the bikes, especially bikes going the opposite way on one-way streets.
Could be. Or maybe drivers will get used to people popping up everywhere and will therefore drive with more concentration. I'm not sure, like you say, it will be interesting to see the data.
I remember visiting California in the 1990s and was amazed to see my California friends waiting patiently at the light, looking at me like I was uncivilized because I just crossed the street whenever it was safe.
Current day Sweden: People cross tend to cross the street whenever it feels safe, unless there's some mom/dad with young kids in tow nearby. Then it's polite to wait for the light to turn green. We often have very little traffic on our streets though, and they are often not very wide.
It's technically illegal to jaywalk but not punishable unless you manage to cause a traffic accident, somehow. I like these pragmatic laws.
In the United States, having laws like that results in discriminatory policing (see many threads here). Probably less than an issue in a country that doesn't have such issues with race.
Not growing up in america I never understood what jaywalking was - I legit assumed it was a pedestrian crossing a freeway because nothing else made sense. Growing up I was taught explicitly to do what in the US was a crime: crossing between intersections because it is vastly safer than crossing at intersections.
Obviously, there's a more complex issue with jaywalking where it is a crime that is trivially easy to enforce in a discriminatory manner, and it creates endless opportunities for pretextual searches once NY's clearly unconstitutional stop-and-frisk laws were overturned.
Jaywalking is any crossing in a wrong / illegal way, not about intersections specifically. Mostly it's about not using crosswalks, so I don't see how it collides with what Europe does.
In Europe you also have differences with some countries where crosswalk lights are as a mandate from God and nobody will cross even at 2am deserted road. And then you have countries where the crosswalk lights are mere decorations.
> In Europe you also have differences with some countries where crosswalk lights are as a mandate from God and nobody will cross even at 2am deserted road
I think that's mostly just certain parts of Germany.
Jaywalking is a pedestrian crossing outside of explicitly designated crossings points. In the US that means by *default( any pedestrian crossing any street at any location other than a pedestrian crossing or an intersection, regardless of distance to such a point.
There is a massive difference between "country culturally tends towards using designated crossing points" and "it's a criminal offense to not use them". I'm curious about which countries outside of the US, especially in Europe, that criminalize jaywalking.
Which countries obey crossing lights as strictly as you describe? I've been to lots of European countries and none were like that. Not in the way that the US is.
> crossing between intersections because it is vastly safer than crossing at intersections
It's true in most city streets because even if cars drive faster outside of intersections, if we walk fast and have good visibility then it's not an issue.
There are very busy roundabouts with crosswalks right next to them.
As a driver having to stop means being scared for your car's behind.
The speed of vehicles is not super relevant in the context of the intrinsic safety for a pedestrian crossing the road. Assuming reasonable amounts of visibility.
The safest way for a pedestrian to cross a road is a location where there is the greatest opportunity to avoid a collision at any speed. That means minimizing number of directions you need to watch for traffic, and maximizing the likelihood of being in the line of sight of drivers. That means you want to cross away from intersections.
Crossing between intersections means that as a pedestrian you only have to be concerned about traffic from two (or even just one) directions, and for oncoming traffic you will definitionally be in the direction the drivers are facing.
Crossing at intersections means as a pedestrian you are having to watch for traffic from more directions, including directly behind you, and traffic approaching the intersection has drivers who are necessarily going to be having to look at places other than directly in front of them in the case of traffic coming towards you on the street you are crossing, and traffic coming from the other streets may not by physically able to see you on the intersecting cross street (from their PoV) prior to actually reaching the intersection.
Hence crossing between intersections is safer because it reduces the likelihood of any collision, as it's easier for everyone involved to be aware of everyone else.
Speed of a pedestrian vs vehicle collision is much less of a safety factor than just not having the collision at all, because the difference in speed between "walk away" and "going to hospital" is very small - well within normal intersection speeds. At higher speeds of course the likelihood of going to the morgue skyrockets, but when considering the safety of "low speed" collisions it's important to consider a "low speed" collision that is minor for an adult is still easily able to kill a child, and the speed _required_ to kill is not that high as demonstrated by multiple pedestrian vs cyclist collisions that have killed people (I think generally older people or just really bad luck but its just important to recognize that the "serious damage to soft and squishy people" is way lower than people think).
In most places, jaywalking typically means crossing outside of a crosswalk while being within a short distance of a crosswalk. It's more dangerous for pedestrians near crosswalks, cars are turning and have limited visibility, so using the crosswalk (when crossing is allowed, if there's a crossing indicator) is the rule.
If you are a certain distance away from a crosswalk, you are allowed to cross the road but must yield to oncoming cars.
It's really pretty simple and common-sense. Of course there are differences in local rules, but this is the way it usually works.
I think "no jaywalking because safety" would make more sense if crosswalks were totally safe. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in NY, can't traffic move over crosswalks even against traffic lights, in some circumstances? I always find that confusing-and frightening!
Other comments have pointed out that intersections are difficult to cross safely because cars are coming from multiple directions, often in non-obvious ways.
Between the intersections you only have two directions to worry about.
In the UK we have various types of pedestrian crossing, but they're an optional convenience. You can use them, or you can find a safe place and time to cross yourself.
In the UK, not at every intersection, by any means. In fact, it's probably a minority in many places. We're taught how to cross in the middle of the road.
Of course, the question is "is it a crime to cross a road outside of those designated points" in america the answer is often "yes".
Which means the only legal place to cross a road is an intersection, which is significantly less safe for pedestrians.
Next time you're going for a walk, try to estimate what % of intersections or crossing points are protected (stop signs for all roads, traffic lights, or barriers). Similarly, when you're out driving try and see how much you slow down for each intersection (ie non-jaywalking crossing points) - this is not a judgement on driving style this is just about working out relative safety. Any unprotected intersection you go through without significantly slowing down (think dropping to parking lot speed) for is a location where crossing away from the intersection is safer.
Safety for pedestrians crossing a road is primarily from collision avoidance - as I said in another comment the amount of damage from a pedestrian vs vehicle collision high at even "low" car speeds.
There is one situation where some kind of enforcement is needed: crowds of people ignoring pedestrian signals, and flooding across crosswalks continuously. Then the traffic never gets a chance to move. Cars cannot safely crawl or nudge their way through the throng of people, who feel the protection of collective security.
One might argue that such large crowds are an indication that the road should be fully pedestrianized - perhaps by time-of-day, or only for specific shopping holidays (e.g. Black Friday, Xmas). The alternative for these peaks is often manual control of people and vehicles by a police/traffic/community officer, like a school crossing).
Perhaps there could be some critical crossings where there is a legally enforceable 'double-red' pedestrian signal.
Readit News
It's also not a word in the German language at all, it's just "crossing the road". If you do it safely grate, if you don't not grate and if there are children nearby unsafe road crossing is really something you shouldn't do, especially it it's just because you are to lazy to walk a small bit more (I think crossing a road close by a pedestrian crossing while you aren't allowed to cross it is also the only way it is illegal outside of the case of "you action counting as endangering you or others" (like actually endangering not some absurd twisting of definitions)).
Germany seems very strict compared to the UK. You can be fined €10 in Germany for crossing when the red man is lit!
My assumption for the first 30+ years of my life, after watching US films was that it was something akin to walking while looking suspicious.
I find the differing conceptions of 'freedom' interesting. The US likes to think of itself as more free, but they can't even cross the road.
PS fyi, its 'great'. 'grate' sounds the same, but that means a thick metal grid, typically on the floor, or as to grate cheese.
It's a bit strange though because the city doesn't even have that many cars and usually it's pretty safe to just look both ways.
It’s common enough that not crossing at a red light as a pedestrian (with no cars in sight) can be a tell that you’re potentially German :)
Dead Comment
As a general rule, I watch the cars and not the traffic lights. Mostly because many motorists (and NYC buses are the worst!) often don't pay attention to pedestrians, intersections or traffic lights. In fact, I'm more careful when walking through an intersection than in the middle of the street.
It's the most international city in the US, and a disproportionate number of people who use the roads (taxis, delivery drivers, etc) grew up in places that have a traffic system very different that the US's. People in New York routinely run red lights, roll through crosswalks, ride in the shoulder - things that you might encounter in other countries, but are generally considered disrespectful/dangerous in the US. When so many drivers grew up driving in places that tolerate those behaviors (either in their home countries or as native New Yorkers), it creates a road culture that's very different than you'd expect in other parts of America.
In other cities, you can take a "trust but verify" approach to traffic. Drivers will respect traffic lights. Pedestrians will cross where they're meant to. People will (only) use the lanes painted on the road. You have to be alert in case an outlier does something differently, but we generally consider those people selfish exceptions.
The written rules and the practiced culture deviate immensely in New York. You can't just operate by the rules and expect that everyone else will too.
Plus you have literal a-holes who ignore traffic rules on purpose, which in place where I live (Switzerland) is maybe 80% of the cyclists. I've had few near miss (5cm max) as a pedestrian where cyclist with red light zoomed through thick crowd crossing without even slowing down. Bear in mind that >=30kmh hit of pedestrian can easily end up in fatality or permanent disability, when wife worked on urgency in biggest hospital around here, there were some dead pedestrians from such collisions.
Usually it is only respected in high traffic roads, unless one wants to play frogger in real life.
And while there are technically fines, like 10 €, in practice the police has more usefull things to worry about and unless you get an officer having a bad day and someone has to pay for it, they won't care.
I don't think I can take this claim for granted.
On days where I work from home and never leave my 950 sqft apartment, 2000ish steps is trivial to reach.
Dead Comment
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.
Third, just because someone else is jaywalking does not mean you should follow them! Always asses your own path because someone else may be timing it differently.
"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.
We see folks trying to take away the progress we made here. My county is trying to ban shroom companies. Very sad.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0PUgbArgXJA
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.
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.
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.
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...
Can you show me a single person that thinks/says this
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.
It's easy to see how this could result in tragedy.
Germany, Japan, there is strict social compliance so it feels right anyway.
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.)
There is quite a bit of historical evidence for this being really bad for society.
this is basically NYC law already, including pedestrian interactions
And where exactly do you live where only rich people drive cars?
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.
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.
Dead Comment
Forth, how many more people will be run over in NYC now?
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.
----------
VC 21955. (a) Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.
(b) (1) A peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation of subdivision (a) unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power.
(2) This subdivision does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety.
(3) This subdivision does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the roadway.
Less traffic, fewer inputs/outputs to keep under observations.
A solution sometimes seen in London is a “Pedestrian Scramble”, where pedestrians are explicitly given full (and even diagonal) access to a junction with all other traffic stopped.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedestrian_scramble
You used to comply? Don't comply with dumb laws and rules -- it encourages them to pile on more.
Those stated goals seem, to me, to clash with the idea of now making it up to people's discretion to cross roads wherever and whenever they want, rather than at dedicated, marked, predictable, traffic crossings equipped with signal lights that tell cars and pedestrians who has the right of way.
I'm curious in X years if the data will or will not show more pedestrians got hit by cars following this change.
I walk/run, drive, and cycle in NYC. In my view, the way NYC works in most intersections and roads is pretty close to maximally efficient. And it generally gets better over time, although it has occasionally gotten worse in the name of safety.
The things that make it that way include (1) mostly one-way roads, which makes jaywalking significantly easier and safer (2) mostly single-lane or dual-lane roads (3) well-tuned traffic lights with relatively brief cycles (4) relatively low speed limits that are brutally enforced with speed traps (5) an abundance of red light cameras.
The least safe parts of the city are those with more than 2 lanes of traffic, especially if it's bi-directional, and those with really poorly designed cycling infrastructure. My pet peeve roads are the ones that look like this:
| sidewalk | cycle lane | parking spots | road |
e.g. Grand St in Williamsburg, because this design makes jay-walking extremely dangerous. and it makes cyclists go faster than they otherwise-would, because of the (occasionally-enough-to-be-dangerous false) sense of being insulated from both pedestrians and cars.
The other major source of risks, again IME, are cyclists going counter-traffic on one-way roads, and people on electric-assisted bikes in general traveling >20mph.
In Europe you see plenty of places that are pedestrian first and the car drivers are expected to act differently as a result. Something similar happens in Amsterdam where it is a cyclist first city. Cyclists expect right of way and cars are few and far between.
So long as you go about thinking of this in terms of car first as a de facto part of life you won't understand how good it could be with less cars.
There's also the balance of power that NYC is actually mostly pedestrian. Anything that empowers pedestrians and inhibits cars is a net win for freedom of movement.
Growing up in the UK, which is car-centric but not as much as the US, jaywalking was an alien term and concept. I remember being confused by the concept when I first visited the US. In the UK there be many crossing with or without lights and regular traffic islands for pedestrians. You get used to crossing the road without signal controlled crossing. And yet the vehicle death rate in the UK is 4 times lower per 100,000 population than the US, 2 times lower per distance driven and the pedestrian death rate is 5 times lower.
But I love that way. I think the alternative is just fascism. The idea that pedestrians are illegal if they don’t use a crosswalk seems insane to me.
Those sorts of measures have been shown to have negative impact on people's behaviour.
If drivers think vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians are segregated away, they'll drive at higher speeds.
Pedestrians may start to assume that it's always safe for them to walk in certain places without looking.
On the other hand, if you have a system in place where people know that traffic does mix, there will be a lot more caution from all road users.
At first I was concerned, but then I realized it's actually a lot safe. The motorbikes were cautious because there could be a pedestrian at any turn. And the pedestrians were cautious because there could be a motorbike at any moment.
Didn't see a single accident or even any near misses.
It's technically illegal to jaywalk but not punishable unless you manage to cause a traffic accident, somehow. I like these pragmatic laws.
Obviously, there's a more complex issue with jaywalking where it is a crime that is trivially easy to enforce in a discriminatory manner, and it creates endless opportunities for pretextual searches once NY's clearly unconstitutional stop-and-frisk laws were overturned.
In Europe you also have differences with some countries where crosswalk lights are as a mandate from God and nobody will cross even at 2am deserted road. And then you have countries where the crosswalk lights are mere decorations.
I think that's mostly just certain parts of Germany.
There is a massive difference between "country culturally tends towards using designated crossing points" and "it's a criminal offense to not use them". I'm curious about which countries outside of the US, especially in Europe, that criminalize jaywalking.
It's true in most city streets because even if cars drive faster outside of intersections, if we walk fast and have good visibility then it's not an issue.
There are very busy roundabouts with crosswalks right next to them. As a driver having to stop means being scared for your car's behind.
The safest way for a pedestrian to cross a road is a location where there is the greatest opportunity to avoid a collision at any speed. That means minimizing number of directions you need to watch for traffic, and maximizing the likelihood of being in the line of sight of drivers. That means you want to cross away from intersections.
Crossing between intersections means that as a pedestrian you only have to be concerned about traffic from two (or even just one) directions, and for oncoming traffic you will definitionally be in the direction the drivers are facing.
Crossing at intersections means as a pedestrian you are having to watch for traffic from more directions, including directly behind you, and traffic approaching the intersection has drivers who are necessarily going to be having to look at places other than directly in front of them in the case of traffic coming towards you on the street you are crossing, and traffic coming from the other streets may not by physically able to see you on the intersecting cross street (from their PoV) prior to actually reaching the intersection.
Hence crossing between intersections is safer because it reduces the likelihood of any collision, as it's easier for everyone involved to be aware of everyone else.
Speed of a pedestrian vs vehicle collision is much less of a safety factor than just not having the collision at all, because the difference in speed between "walk away" and "going to hospital" is very small - well within normal intersection speeds. At higher speeds of course the likelihood of going to the morgue skyrockets, but when considering the safety of "low speed" collisions it's important to consider a "low speed" collision that is minor for an adult is still easily able to kill a child, and the speed _required_ to kill is not that high as demonstrated by multiple pedestrian vs cyclist collisions that have killed people (I think generally older people or just really bad luck but its just important to recognize that the "serious damage to soft and squishy people" is way lower than people think).
If you are a certain distance away from a crosswalk, you are allowed to cross the road but must yield to oncoming cars.
It's really pretty simple and common-sense. Of course there are differences in local rules, but this is the way it usually works.
Why is it safer?
Between the intersections you only have two directions to worry about.
Which means the only legal place to cross a road is an intersection, which is significantly less safe for pedestrians.
Next time you're going for a walk, try to estimate what % of intersections or crossing points are protected (stop signs for all roads, traffic lights, or barriers). Similarly, when you're out driving try and see how much you slow down for each intersection (ie non-jaywalking crossing points) - this is not a judgement on driving style this is just about working out relative safety. Any unprotected intersection you go through without significantly slowing down (think dropping to parking lot speed) for is a location where crossing away from the intersection is safer.
Safety for pedestrians crossing a road is primarily from collision avoidance - as I said in another comment the amount of damage from a pedestrian vs vehicle collision high at even "low" car speeds.
There is one situation where some kind of enforcement is needed: crowds of people ignoring pedestrian signals, and flooding across crosswalks continuously. Then the traffic never gets a chance to move. Cars cannot safely crawl or nudge their way through the throng of people, who feel the protection of collective security.
One might argue that such large crowds are an indication that the road should be fully pedestrianized - perhaps by time-of-day, or only for specific shopping holidays (e.g. Black Friday, Xmas). The alternative for these peaks is often manual control of people and vehicles by a police/traffic/community officer, like a school crossing).
Perhaps there could be some critical crossings where there is a legally enforceable 'double-red' pedestrian signal.