Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [carfree_cities] Re: Jaywalking is good for cities

Expand Messages
  • Richard Risemberg
    ... In California, you may cross anywhere, crosswalk or not, UNLESS the street has signals at both ends of the block you re on, in which case you must use
    Message 1 of 13 , Mar 3, 2006
      On Mar 3, 2006, at 4:41 AM, J.H. Crawford wrote:

      > It's important to be clear that jaywalking implies a violation
      > of a traffic law. If there are crosswalks, the law says you
      > are obliged to use them. If there are none, then you may
      > cross where you please, and you are therefore not jaywalking.
      In California, you may cross anywhere, crosswalk or not, UNLESS the
      street has signals at both ends of the block you're on, in which case
      you must use crosswalks.

      My street has such signals, but I jaywalk anyway. Every single day.

      Rick
      --
      Richard Risemberg
      http://www.rickrise.com
      http://www.newcolonist.com
      http://www.living-room.org
    • Doug Salzmann
      ... That s incorrect, at least in most North American jurisdictions. First, it is a common misconception that paint creates crosswalks. It does not.
      Message 2 of 13 , Mar 3, 2006
        > It's important to be clear that jaywalking implies a violation
        > of a traffic law. If there are crosswalks, the law says you
        > are obliged to use them. If there are none, then you may
        > cross where you please, and you are therefore not jaywalking.

        That's incorrect, at least in most North American jurisdictions.

        First, it is a common misconception that paint creates crosswalks. It
        does not.

        "Crosswalk" is typically defined as an extension of the sidewalk,
        shoulder, or whatever pedestrian R.O.W. there may be, across an
        intersection of roadways. The crosswalk thus exists, and the associated
        rights and obligations of pedestrians, drivers, etc. apply, whether it is
        marked (painted) or not.

        Second, mid-block crossings are generally perfectly legal, with the
        proviso that crossing pedestrians must yield to auto traffic before
        beginning to cross. The main exception is between two signalized
        (traffic-light controlled) intersections, where such crossings are
        usually prohibited.

        As this should make clear, "jaywalking" is pretty meaningless as a legal
        term.

        All of the foregoing is subject to the variable provisions of local
        ordinances, of course.


        > >And of course Jaywalking is good for cities, as recent studies have
        > >proven - after all is the best large scale traffic calming procedure.
        >
        > Well, the best large-scale traffic calming procedure is
        > to put up barriers to cars and keep them out entirely.

        Yes, indeed. And, THAT is the subject of this list, isn't it?


        -Doug
      • J.H. Crawford
        ... and reality constructs language ... J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities mailbox@carfree.com
        Message 3 of 13 , Mar 3, 2006
          >This is a great discussion. I think there must be other terms in the
          >US-english strictly related to auto-centric views, which are not found in
          >other languages. I fully agree with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Language
          >constructs reality. Thanks for the comment!

          and reality constructs language


          ----- ### -----
          J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
          mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
        • Simon Baddeley
          So can I ask again whether you are comfortable with the Wikipedia entry on jaywalking ?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking It seems that it might be
          Message 4 of 13 , Mar 3, 2006
            So can I ask again whether you are comfortable with the Wikipedia entry on
            "jaywalking"?:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking

            It seems that it might be reasonable to edit in a few sentences at the end
            of the paragraph headed "Driver cooperation" where reference might be made
            to mutual cooperation among ALL road users as encouraged by "naked streets"
            - and indeed give a link to examples of this idea which has behind it the
            idea of no traffic exceeding 17mph in order to allow negotiation between
            different road users via eye contact.

            QUOTE: To disrobe a street, you remove all the conventional methods of
            controlling vehicles and keeping them separate from pedestrians. Traffic
            lights, barriers, signs, curbs, and pedestrian crossings are all taken out.
            The idea behind it is to make the road space less predictable. Instead of
            drivers being able to rely on road markings and charge along on the
            assumption that pedestrians are all corralled safely out of the way, they
            will have to continually interact with people, make decisions about how fast
            to drive and generally take more responsibility for their actions. London is
            trying the idea in Exhibition Road, Kensington, in which some of the
            capital¹s biggest museums are sited. The idea sounds extraordinary, so much
            so that the British tabloid newspaper the Sun wrote in an editorial: ³Have
            you ever, in your whole life, heard of anything more stupid? Apparently the
            idea was conceived in Holland, where everyone is on drugs and drives slowly
            anyway.² It was indeed pioneered in the Netherlands, but by the soberest of
            traffic planners, who claim success in significantly reducing accidents.

            The concept of the naked street was spearheaded by the Netherlands, where
            traffic lights and markings have been stripped from several junctions in
            recent years.
            [Denver Post, 14 Feb. 2005]


            In the Danish city of Christiansfeld, a busy intersection known for traffic
            jams and accidents was given the naked street treatment four years ago.
            Since then, there have been no fatal accidents.
            [Australian, 10 Feb. 2005]


            Best

            Simon


            > From: "J.H. Crawford" <mailbox@...>
            > Reply-To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
            > Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 16:57:45 +0000
            > To: <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
            > Subject: RE: [carfree_cities] Re: Jaywalking is good for cities
            >
            >
            >
            >> This is a great discussion. I think there must be other terms in the
            >> US-english strictly related to auto-centric views, which are not found in
            >> other languages. I fully agree with the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Language
            >> constructs reality. Thanks for the comment!
            >
            > and reality constructs language
            >
            >
            > ----- ### -----
            > J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
            > mailbox@... http://www.carfree.com
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Lloyd Wright
            One small suggestion regarding naked streets . The person attributed with developing the idea, Hans Monderman, tends to use the term shared space rather
            Message 5 of 13 , Mar 3, 2006
              One small suggestion regarding "naked streets". The person attributed with
              developing the idea, Hans Monderman, tends to use the term "shared space"
              rather than "naked streets". I think that "shared space" is probably a
              slightly more marketable name. I have also heard it called "post traffic
              calming" and "third-generation traffic calming". However, it seems that the
              people who have worked hard to make the concept a reality seem to prefer
              "shared space". There is a Wikipedia entry for shared space, if anyone is
              interested:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_space

              Best,

              Lloyd

              ------ Original Message ------
              Received: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 12:17:02 PM EST
              From: Simon Baddeley <s.j.baddeley@...>
              To: Carfree Cities <carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com>
              Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Re: Jaywalking is good for cities

              of the paragraph headed "Driver cooperation" where reference might be made to
              mutual cooperation among ALL road users as encouraged by "naked streets" - and
              indeed give a link to examples of this idea which has behind it the idea of no
              traffic exceeding 17mph in order to allow negotiation between different road
              users via eye contact.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.