The entire country would be completely unworkable if you could only cross at a "cross-walk." Some villages literally don't have any. The only jaywalking-type laws in the UK are for motorways (70 MpH).
The whole jaywalking thing seems very authoritarian are arbitrary in the US. But the US has a lot of that type of thing in general. Just look at the recent articles about New York's ticketing strike, some of the things they were ticketing for on mass were a little odd and petty.
New York's been following what's called a "broken window" policing strategy. The premise is that you go into areas that have high rates of (serious) crime, and do zealous enforcement of even minor crimes (graffiti, jaywalking), and that this sort of enforcement contributes towards the reduction of the crime that matters. It's named for the premise that ostentatious signs of lawlessness and urban decay (like broken windows) invite further, more dangerous, disorder, like gangs staking out turf and assaulting/robbing people passing by.
This sort of policing policy is controversial in New York and is relatively uncommon in the rest of the nation.
For what it's worth, violent crime and murders in most of these predominantly-minority communities has been reduced substantially in the past several years. However, it seems to result in at least some members of the community feeling substantially more oppressed, and it does result in inequal treatment of minorities by police if for no other reason than geographic correlation.
(Disclaimer. The general desirability of this approach is neither endorsed nor condemned herein.)
>For whatever reason, however,riding your bike on the sidewalk is rigidly enforced against.
and it is very good reason. A bike on the move at say double pedestrian speed has like 30ft ahead by 6ft width virtual zone which is dangerous for anybody else and thus has to be empty. It just doesn't fit into typical sidewalk space which would typically be like those 6ft wide and bike rider routinely lets people get into the 30ft ahead zone thus constantly placing them in danger.
> The whole jaywalking thing seems very authoritarian
> are arbitrary in the US. But the US has a lot of
> that type of thing in general.
That depends on your viewpoint.
Here in Holland people are being arrested for owning airsoft guns (toys which fire plastic ball-bearings at speeds high enough to pierce paper but low enough as to minimise chance of injury).
I don't know; a man was arrester in New Jersey for firing an airsoft gun in his backyard[1], since they're classified as regular firearms and require permit in that state.
Using one-off examples as it pertains to the US doesn't work very well as an argument when laws and enforcement vary so drastically from location to location.
Simply put, that isn't a good counter example to the parent's point, because it doesn't apply to more than a very small percentage of the US population.
7 million is about the population of the Randstad, the agglomeration in the west of Netherland that contains the major cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, Utrecht) as well as numerous minor ones, grown together into what's practically one giant city.
But there's still 10 million people living in the rest of the country.
It's also legal to cross a pedestrian crossing on the "red man" in the UK - the lights on the crossing are only advisory to pedestrians.
I live near the German school in West London and have many German friends here. When I cross on the red light, I always get lots of hard stares from the Germans waiting at the crossing. Many don't realize the laws here are different, and it's perfectly legal. Of course if you do get yourself run over, the driver is unlikely to be found at fault.
I left a large metal concert in Leipzig at about 3am in a big group, wandered straight across the empty dual carriageway against the red man, and found myself alone on the other side being tutted at by 50 metalheads opposite.
I live about 1km from the Deutsche Schule. I was surprised to find three German bakeries within 5 minutes walk of my house when I moved here...
* Seattle: Pedestrians don't even jaywalk on empty streets at 1AM
* Manhattan: Jaywalk at your own risk
* Boston: Everyone jaywalks all of the time, everywhere. Pedestrians cross streets anywhere at free random and do not acknowledge the existence of motor vehicles.
> Boston ... do not acknowledge the existence of motor vehicles
I presume you haven't spent much time in Boston? There's a constant dialog that goes on between pedestrians, cars, bikes, etc where for any situation everybody judges each others' velocity, figures out the obvious ordering, and then executes on that plan. When there's a conflict, the party that's already behind generally delays themselves slightly and that's that. It's the people that don't understand this give-and-take that tend to cause problems.
To me, that seems a lot more reasonable that eg SoCal where if I'm planning on walking behind a car in a neighborhood or parking lot, most of the time they'll slam on their brakes and wave me on as if they're doing me a favor by getting in my way.
This has always amazed me about Boston. The image burned in my mind from my one visit there years ago was of a very elderly woman with a hunched back simply crossing the street, as you say almost "at random", and without acknowledging the "existence of motor vehicles". There was a wall of traffic incoming from a fresh green light, but she aimed at a store across the street and just started walking diagonally towards it, not looking either way, and without even a pause for consideration. The traffic simply stopped and waited as she slowly crossed; no-one honked.
In Manhattan I have a different memory, of masses of people stubbornly crossing against the red, right at the crosswalk, while a taxi slowly tried pushing its way into the sea of pedestrians. But I don't blame them because in NYC every. single. god. damn. intersection has a traffic light. I guess they thought Stop signs weren't good enough. Or even just right of way.
Oh, if y' ain't from that town and y' look like the troublemakin' sort, the sheriff will swoop in like a hawk and getcha, after one teensy J walkin' step. It don't matter if you look real careful ever' which way before doin' it. He's got his eyes on you.
Degree of enforcement also seems to be very much subject to officer discretion. I've never met anyone ticketed for jaywalking an empty 2-lane street at night, but if you dash across a busy thoroughfare right in front of oncoming traffic you are much more liable to get ticketed.
> The entire country would be completely unworkable if you could only cross at a "cross-walk." Some villages literally don't have any.
Austria does not have a jaywalking law but it has a law that requires any participant in traffic to adhere to light signals. Neither cars, nor bikes nor pedestrians are allowed to ignore red lights and if they do, they can be (and will be) fined.
In New Zealand, if I recall correctly, jaywalking rules only apply if you are within 100 metres of a crosswalk. Walking an extra 200 metres to cross the road might seem a bit excessive, but you won't get in trouble for crossing the road when no crosswalk is in sight.
That being said, I haven't heard of anybody ever being caught for jaywalking in New Zealand.
The entire country would be completely unworkable if you could only cross at a "cross-walk." Some villages literally don't have any. The only jaywalking-type laws in the UK are for motorways (70 MpH).
The whole jaywalking thing seems very authoritarian are arbitrary in the US. But the US has a lot of that type of thing in general. Just look at the recent articles about New York's ticketing strike, some of the things they were ticketing for on mass were a little odd and petty.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#United_Kingdom