Talk:Jaywalking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article strikes me as having a very auto-centric point of view, definetly not NPOV. I think I may take a stab at re-writing to a more NPOV soon. -- MarkJaroski 10:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur -- I was only half-joking when I called parts of the article "anti-pedestrianism" back in December. This article either demonstrates how easily subtle POV statements can slip into writing about even pedestrian mundane topics, or demonstrates a deeply-seeded Motorist culture-war against all things pedestrian on foot. ~CS 21:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] John Jay Story - Should it be removed?

Several details in the anecdote don't ring true, so I searched a copy of "Homes of American Statesmen" and found several mentions of John Jay but none of this anecdote. The only other reference I can find to this are in a blog with the following post - "If you mean the part about John Jay and jaywalking, I totally made that crap up while (alone and) drunk. I hope nobody incorporated that into any papers they were writing."

Here's some relevant links.

http://www.weirdsmobile.com/archives/2005/05/quiet-reflection.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=0aoLAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22homes+of+american+statesmen%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=f87n7ztR--&sig=9M3p4Q1BgBo_7ZJCT1hj_QSUqn0

69.155.76.41 01:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australia?

There's a comment in this article to the effect that jaywalking in Brisbane can carry a fine of $A200. Is that unique to that city, a Queensland thing, or a pan-Australian thing? I'm British so jaywalking is an alien concept to me; if someone who knows more could expand that bit it would be useful. Loganberry (Talk) 00:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illegal?

I'm not sure the claim that jaywalking is always a violation of traffic regulations, is really true. I seem to recall something in the California Drivers' Handbook, or some similar document, saying something like:

If you jaywalk (cross between intersections) you must yield to all vehicles."

So it could be that "jaywalk" simply means "cross between intersections" (at least for the California DMV), and while it may sometimes be illegal (depending on local ordinances, or on whether you fail to yield) it is not necessarily illegal in all cases. --Trovatore 18:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Check it out at http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs83thru84.htm
PEDESTRIAN RESPONSIBILITIES*

Yield the right-of-way to vehicles when you:

    * Cross or walk where intersections or crosswalks are not marked.
    * “Jaywalk” across a street between intersections, where no pedestrian crosswalks are provided.

I'm not sure they're saying it's legal, maybe just trying to give some helpful advice. This is also a state publication; jaywalking could be illegal at a more local level. Maybe a better definition of jaywalking is simply crossing the street without having the right-of-way? Ewlyahoocom 18:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If I recall, pedestrians always have the right of way -- even if they are doing so dangerously or illegally. I'm not sure, though. Medevilenemy 00:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

When I went to traffic school in California for a speeding violation in 2006, the lecturer, a former CHP Sheriff, stated that jaywalking is defined as crossing in the middle of the street between two signalled intersections. If one or both of the intersections has merely a stop sign, or no sign or signal at all, then it is not jaywalking in the State of California. 72.194.122.14 05:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)John D. 27 September 2007

"In The Netherlands, pedestrians have been permitted to jaywalk legally since 1997" This doesn't conform with the introduction, where it states that jaywalking is an illegal act, therefore if they're doing it legally, it's not jaywalking. This problem ties in with the legality issue, of whether jaywalking is, by defination, illegal. Lycand 12:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
That sentence is quoted almost verbatim from source; the source doesn't give a definition of jaywalking. It might be worth trying to find a better source. 217.34.39.123 13:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pennsylvania

Many intersections in Pennsylvania prohibit crossing - on all four sides! This needs to be added with a good citation. --SPUI (T - C) 14:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Highest number Jay walking tickets receipts from San Francisco, CA, USA & Oakland, CA, USA

[edit] American English

I deleted the reference to it being an American English term. Although it's not an offence in Britain (thank God!), the term is known and sometimes used and some of the Oxford English Dictionary citations as to its use are British and Australian. -- Necrothesp 08:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah no one ever gets a ticket for jaywalking, and pretty much everyone does it, because it's just impossible to get anywhere on foot otherwise. The only time it could matter is in the case of an accident, where the pedestrian's comparative negligence on jaywalking might reduce his recovery. But yeah, this article makes it sound like American laws are draconian - obviously written by a foreigner. 65.10.56.223 02:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK / Motorways

I modified the Legality section to point out that "jaywalking" is illegal in the UK on motorways. - Wardog

Although this is slightly different - being anywhere on a motorway as a pedistrian is illegal, even walking on the grass verge, whereas jaywalking refers more specifically to crossing, which would just be plain stupid on a motorway, while there is no good reason not to allow it on slower roads. 130.246.132.26 17:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What stupid laws...

I'm for jaywalking because of the implication of anti-jaywalking laws that cars are more important than pedestrians. Walking is better for you and for the environment, and as much convenience as possible should be offered to pedestrians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonaboff (talk • contribs) 23:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. Death is VERY convenient.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This a completely alien concept to me (I'm British!). And the views I'm seeing expressed both here and over the rest of the Internet seem very strange. It has never, ever occurred to me that crossing the road might be illegal. In Britain we're taught to cross the road safely (including at school) from a very young age - they call it the Green Cross Code. Apparently I "Jaywalk" multiple times every single day. Almost everyone in Britain does, and yet we've still got one of the best road safety records anywhere in Europe. Yet looking at the above comments people clearly believe it's dangerous and results in death: I honestly cannot believe it! After 26 years and I'm not dead yet. There are plenty of people in this country who are over 100 and haven't been killed crossing the road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.100.187.243 (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jaywalking in The Netherlands and Germany

At this time the article states "In The Netherlands, pedestrians have been permitted to jaywalk legally since 1997.". It backs this statement up by using paper which states "Cyclists are also expected to obey traffic laws in The Netherlands, but pedestrians have been permitted to jaywalk legally since 1997." However the paper itself does not offer any footnotes concerning this issue, so I am unable to verify this information.

I am not convinced that this is actually the case. In Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act (PDF, en) it is stated that "It is an offence for any road user to act in such manner as to cause a hazard (or a potential hazard) on the public highway or to obstruct other road users in any way." where road user is defined as "pedestrians, cyclists, moped riders, drivers of invalid carriages, motor vehicles of trams, horse riders, persons accompanying animals or cattle and drivers of horse-drawn or other wagons"

In most cases jaywalking might be tolerated, but I do not believe it is actually legal. --Bruce 16:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The BBC article linked at the bottom of the page claims that it is legal, too. number29 06:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The article claims "In Germany and the Netherlands, the onus is more on the motorist. Not stopping for pedestrians on crossings is an offence, and a driver can be issued with a ticket even if they are waiting on the kerb (again, the expectation is that pedestrians should cross safely).", where I believe crossing stands for zebra or pedestrian crossing. Which is an entirely different matter. I've removed the statement to prevent further confusion, if anybody manages to find a verifiable source feel free to put it back in. The next time I see a police officer I'll ask him or her about it. --Bruce 09:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK in Germany you are allowed to cross roads wherever you like to, except from where it's explicitly prohibited or at a red traffic light. You are not allowed to walk at and on the Autobahn. A pedestrian is considered to being a part of traffic and is bound to the general road code (Straßenverkehrs-Ordnung). The general road code starts like this (rough translation)

§1 General Rules (1) Taking part in traffic requires continuous awareness and mutual thoughtfulness. (2) Every person taking part in traffic has to make sure not to harm or to endanger somebody else or to constrict or discommode somebody else more than necessary according to circumstances [then it goes on with all the regular stuff]

That means if you hit somebody with your car, you will have broken these rules on top of whatever happened. If you're too stupid to cross the road, well, it's at least partly your fault because you should have crossed the road safely and avoid accidents. A different thing is a zebra crossing. Like my driving instructor said: if you drop onto the road off a roof, at night in a thunderstorm, drunk as hell and in a black suit, backwards, 3 meters before a zebra crossing and a car hits you it will be completely, absolutely and badly the drivers fault. Never hit a pedestrians on a zebra in Germany, they are sacred there and you'll go to hell.

However, the concept of prohibited jaywalking to me is ridiculously non-free. --k2r 02:51, 26 August 2007 (CEST)

[edit] "Causes" section etc.

This whole section is POV, including the title itself. It is making the assumption that pedestrians crossing a road wherever and whenever they like is inherently a bad thing, like measles or drug addiction, and is something that should be prevented. The whole article contains systemic bias in that it is making the assumption that the roads belong exclusively to motorised vehicles and pedestrians have no rights there.

When I get round to it I would like to replace this section with a section "Arguments for and against legal bans restricting pedestrians crossing a road".

The next section (Safety) is more a discussion on how to safely cross a road, not specifically related to Jaywalking. This should perhaps be in another article. TiffaF 10:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

    The whole causes section is fantastically funny. 80.195.89.127 (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jaywalking in India

People in India jaywalk! Thats the way we cross roads. There is one main reason for this: no crossings. One there are very few overhead or underground crossings; these being in select few cities (like the underground passages of Chennai, formerly Madras). But even in cities where there are such passages they are spaced by a large distance and it's often difficult if you are caught up in a place far off from one such crossing. And in cities where there are no such passages people cross roads even when the traffic is flowing; thats a compulsion. And at peak hours the traffic is so high in volume that it becomes very difficult to wait for the traffic flow to subside and cross. Maybe I can add a photograph to prove my point.

If not crossing the road, people walk on roads as the pedestrian pathways are occupied, either by the hoardings in front of shops, or by hawkers/street vendors or by the parked vehicles themselves. So how else will people cross/walk on roads?

But there have been accidents. [[1]] (just an example). And not all people walk/cross roads in a hurry but amble across. So in a way it's a two way problem. But before they can even think of banning jaywalking (even in the interest of the public themselves) they must make provisions for people to cross/walk on roads. Elncid 05:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Queens Boulevard

Jay walking is illegal here. But thats not the reason thats stop people from jay walking. YOU WILL DIE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.73.174 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J ????

Can the author of the "J" origin provide an example. Having difficulty understanding the path taken by the jaywalker

65.198.69.3 (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC) DS