The new law permits pedestrians to cross a roadway at any point, including outside of a crosswalk. It also allows for crossing against traffic signals and specifically states that doing so is no longer a violation of the city’s administrative code. But the new law also warns that pedestrians crossing outside of a crosswalk do not have the right of way and that they should yield to other traffic that has the right of way.

    • @Boomkop3@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      Step 2. bring cars to the market before proper regulations were a thing
      Step 3. aggressively lobby and market that it’s the walkers fault for getting driven over
      Step 4. actually win over public opinion somehow

    • @LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      715 hours ago

      There are plenty of places you’re not allowed to walk for your own safety and the safety of others. It’s not a crazy concept, although I do think that jaywalking should be legal

  • Count Regal Inkwell
    link
    fedilink
    English
    5824 hours ago

    “Jaywalking” being a crime is such a fundamentally brainrot thing

    The law here in Brazil, not that anyone follows it, but it basically follows the logic of “the smaller you are, the more of a right of way you have”. I.e. theoretically, a car should ALWAYS stop or slow itself to save a pedestrian or cyclist or even a motorcyclist

    … Again, not that anyone follows it, but it IS on the paper.

    • @jagged_circle@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      18 hours ago

      That’s the same logic in the US. Except everyone yields to animals, because you can’t tell a horse or a mule not to trample that person who walks next to them

    • @Mossheart@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      415 hours ago

      It would be nice if this was followed but the reality of the world is the opposite. It’s right of weight, not right of way.

    • merde alorsOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1220 hours ago

      the term used here is “vulnerable”. Vulnerability gives you priority

  • @frank@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    3523 hours ago

    Good, especially since the law just targets POC.

    If car traffic became 50% worse to make walking traffic 5% better, that’s a win for humans in the city. It’ll help convince more people to use non-car methods of transportation and that helps spark people to vote for and invest in more non-car infrastructure.

    Ditching cars in populated cities isn’t a magic law or anything, it’s a slow incremental burn; legalizing pedestrians walking strictly helps that

      • @frank@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1522 hours ago

        Agree, but it’s certainly easier to do in NYC than rural places in the US, so I advocate for starting there

      • merde alorsOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -421 hours ago

        do you really expect people in rural areas to ditch cars?

        will they go back to carts and horses?

        • @AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1021 hours ago

          The US used to have a comprehensive rail network. Every single town had a train station. We already had the solution to this problem.

          • @Takumidesh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            720 hours ago

            I live in a rail hub in the us. The city is nicknamed after it and train tracks literally run through the city center.

            It would take me 6 hours to walk there.

            • ArxCyberwolf
              link
              fedilink
              English
              518 hours ago

              Please tell me you’re exaggerating. I live in a small city and it only takes me maybe an hour to walk across town. If it’s taking you 6 hours, it’s not rural.

              • @Sludgehammer@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                4
                edit-2
                15 hours ago

                I think he means it would take six hours of walking to reach his city. I mean I live four miles outside of town (which incidentally I’d need to travel to to reach a railroad) and even though it’s smaller than 3000 people it still calls its self a “city”. Also I’d like to note it’s four miles of hilly terrain, which depending on season may feature hundred degree plus temperatures or foot deep snow.

          • merde alorsOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            120 hours ago

            and what do you use to get to the train station?

            how do you carry goods to that station? Does your train have a stop in every farm?

            • @AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              620 hours ago

              Wow you’re right there is a use case for a vehicle therefore it’s literally impossible to have public transit in rural areas, despite the fact that it already existed /s

              • merde alorsOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                120 hours ago

                it’s not like i don’t hate cars, i do. But i really can’t see how you’re going to convince “rurals” with that argument

                good luck to you

                • @AbsoluteChicagoDog@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  219 hours ago

                  We aren’t discussing tactics for convincing people of anything. We’re discussing facts. And the fact is there’s no reason public transit can’t work in rural areas as you stated.

        • 佐藤カズマ
          link
          fedilink
          English
          619 hours ago

          Honestly? Buses would be a good short-term solution that can be implemented immediately with the right political will, and enough force.

    • @stupidcasey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -401 day ago

      Eh, keeping car traffic smooth is way more challenging than keeping pedestrian traffic smooth. Also people tend to be more chaotic in there direction than cars. If a car stops in front of you you’re sorta stuck if a human stops in front of you you can always bash him in the head with a bar stool or go around or whatever.

      I know it was auto manufacturers lobbying for the law but can you imagine people just randomly darting across an interstate moving at 80+ mph? I can because I have seen it before and not once have I thought wow I sure am glad that’s legal.

      • @drake
        link
        English
        471 day ago

        I think you might have picked a bad community to share your sympathies for smooth car traffic, I’m afraid.

        For what it’s worth, I think it’s reasonable enough to forbid pedestrians from crossing high-speed (60+ mph) roads, but otherwise they should have full right of way over any road, and fuck the cars. They can just be patient and deal with it.

        • @stupidcasey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          114 hours ago

          Maybe, but the alternative is unrealistic and simply not the reality we Live in.(at least in the United States)

          • @drake
            link
            English
            210 hours ago

            That’s how every progressive movement starts, until activists make them reality. If it’s a good idea, it’s a good idea - and if that’s not the way that things are done, the question stops being “is this a good idea”, and starts being “how can we implement this good idea”.

        • 佐藤カズマ
          link
          fedilink
          English
          223 hours ago

          But what if those roads didn’t have to exist at all. We could replace those with dedicated high speed rail corridors.

          • @drake
            link
            English
            210 hours ago

            Which, presumably, you’d also restrict people from walking on :P

      • @PriorityMotif@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        23 hours ago

        The entire concept of a car is a scam from manufacturing to driving it. Source: Former car mechanic who has hated cars since before it was cool.

        • Lightor
          link
          fedilink
          English
          420 hours ago

          What, wait, no. I’ve lived in very rural areas, wtf was I supposed to do without a car? Bike back and forth a few hours for groceries?

            • Lightor
              link
              fedilink
              English
              17 hours ago

              So people should only live in dense, crowded cities? Because even in the suburbs it’s not possible to grocery shop without a car.

      • 佐藤カズマ
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -123 hours ago

        I will never be sad when car brains like you learn the hard way that cars are nothing but weapons. This is exactly why cars should be completely illegal, full stop.

        • @stupidcasey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          117 hours ago

          Ok, Let’s assume you are perfectly correct in every way, Now according to your hypothesis Cars have no purpose other than being a weapon, now since cars exist at least for the moment, it is probably for the best to make it illegal to dash across shooting ranges.

          • DarkThoughts
            link
            fedilink
            214 hours ago

            You see, here’s the problem. It’s not actually a shooting range. Streets weren’t made for cars, but for people. Before cars you’d see humans, carriages, horses, etc. all coexisting within the same space.

          • 佐藤カズマ
            link
            fedilink
            English
            017 hours ago

            Eh, I would say pedestrians in that case should be entitled to self-defence.

            • @stupidcasey@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              117 hours ago

              You think in a legally licensed clearly posted shooting rang someone darting through the range illegally should be allowed to retaliate?

              • 佐藤カズマ
                link
                fedilink
                English
                116 hours ago

                Yes, because it would hopefully discourage car brains like yourself from wasting space in cities.

  • @Turbonics
    link
    English
    215 hours ago

    Jaycarring is the new trend

  • @StarlightDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1523 hours ago

    They were also fans of using it against left-wing protestors while ignoring the right doing it, particularly in the case of anti-genocide protests. I assume they will just find something new to pick people off in the crowd now.

  • EleventhHour
    link
    fedilink
    English
    38
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    In 28 years living in New York, the vast majority of my crossing the street is done between the blocks. Some of them are very long.

    And New Yorkers cross the street like we own it because we know that anyone who hits us is gonna get their ass sued off and have to pay out ridiculous amounts of money.

    • @IMNOTCRAZYINSTITUTION@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      721 hours ago

      this really threw me when I first visited new york. I come from a place where you don’t dare try that because you WILL get hit and the driver will likely get no consequences. seeing new yorkers just walk out into traffic without even looking was such a mindfuck

    • azl
      link
      English
      271 day ago

      I support this law (fuck cars), but if you step into the street thinking an oncoming car won’t destroy you like a pinata stuffed with ketchup packets, you have survived the luckiest lawsuit-free 28 years.

      • 佐藤カズマ
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1322 hours ago

        This is great. Maybe I’m crazy, but I’m okay with violence against people who think their convenience takes priority over the safety of others.

      • metaStatic
        link
        fedilink
        41 day ago

        the bricks all end up on one side of the cross walk. good idea, no way for it to actually work.

        • RBG
          link
          fedilink
          English
          251 day ago
          1. It’s a joke.

          2. Just throw them back after use.

          • metaStatic
            link
            fedilink
            21 day ago

            I love it, an elegant solution … now if only we could find an elegant end user to actually implement it.

        • Annoyed_🦀
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 day ago

          Yet somehow some city think it’s a good idea to use the same exact idea but with a flag when crossing the street.

    • zarp86
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1717 hours ago

      Council member Mercedes Narcisse, a Brooklyn Democrat who sponsored the legislation, said on Tuesday that the new law ends racial disparities in enforcement, noting that more than 90% of the jaywalking tickets issued last year went to Black and Latino people.

      Never heard of Walking While Black? This at least forces police to come up with better excuses.

        • sunzu2
          link
          fedilink
          27 hours ago

          Thats the beauty of the law. All bad faith actors are able to get a use case, the rest gets fucked

  • @lseif@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -223 hours ago

    restricting where and when people can walk in in a public space? sounds like communism

  • @Letstakealook@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -221 day ago

    While I certainly don’t think it should be a crime, 90% of the time I see people do it, they are near crosswalks and continue to walk towards them after dangerously playing frogger. What is the motivation? Why are you increasing the danger? Doesn’t make any sense.

    • @x00z@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      212 hours ago

      Where I’m from you need to be at least 30 meters from a crosswalk. Although in practice it just becomes whether or not there is a crosswalk within eyesight.

    • @drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      151 day ago

      In a lot of situations I would rather cross mid block than at a corner crosswalk. The cars can’t be relied on to stop anyway, and mid-block there are a lot less directions you have to worry about.

      Even if the intersection is signalized given the existence of right turns on red it’s still often safer to cross mid block.

      • @Letstakealook@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        317 hours ago

        I could see that in some areas. I rarely feel the need to do this myself, but there are occasions where it does make sense.

      • murph
        link
        English
        323 hours ago

        That’s a good point most places, but in NYC, there is no turn on red. I still agree with being able to cross anywhere.

    • @VonReposti@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 day ago

      In Denmark it’s illegal to cross the road 10-20m (or something like that, forgot the exact number) from a croasswalk. Outside that zone you can cross as much as you want. We are though seeing fences pop up on higher traffic roads to discourage crossing, but mostly on ring roads in bigger cities, not in the cities themselves.

      • @schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        similar in Austria, if there’s a crosswalk within 25 meters, you have to use it although even that law has an exemption “this doesn’t apply if traffic allows it without doubt and vehicle traffic isn’t impaired”

        Hint: most trams in Vienna are 35 meters long, so you can cross at the other end of a tram stop if there’s a crosswalk only on one end.

    • @drake
      link
      English
      21 day ago

      For the same reason that people dangerously exceed speed limits.