Thursday, December 28. 2006This Means Stop.Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Hi!
I have an answer to you regarding Seattle, at least. In general, people tend to jaywalk more in larger cities where traffic is heavier. This is based upon personal observation. There are psychological constants which apply to cities with 'scrapers. Jaywalking is one of them. I'm not going to go into that however, because Seattle has another reason. Originally, Seattle didn't hold with jaywalking laws. The red was considered a warning, and since pedestrians have such rights that even if you hit them on a green light you'd still be at fault, jaywalking was relatively 'safe.' I don't think there were even any 'walk/don't walk' signs on Seattle streets before the 80s. Seattle also has a high level of individuality, where people feel that they can best judge when it's safe to cross. Considering Seattle's history of being largely empty at various points in time, and the astoundingly slow traffic lights, jaywalking was inevitable. It's also a relatively minor offense, one that is frequently hard to uphold in court against any vigorous attorney. Freedom of movement is a constitutional right that is allowed to be abridged only upon 'stringent' requirements. Traffic lights don't usually rate, especially at 35 and under speeds. The entire justification for said lights is to 'regulate the dangers of collisions between vehicles and persons' which causes the most harm, as in it is often fatal. A person stepping out against the light is choosing to take their own chances. I come down on the side of freedom. If there is no oncoming traffic within half a block, where any normal person can EASILY walk across without impeding traffic, who cares? This is different from stepping off the curb in heavy traffic and forcing 6 lanes to wait for you. Additionally, the millions of people who cross the street every day manage not to get hit despite crossing before and after the 'walk' sign. That's technically jaywalking, you're supposed to stop when the sign starts flashing. Of these daily millions, jaywalking traffic fatalities in Seattle are rare. I know of no more than a few dozen per year at most. Lights are not intelligent, and people are. I'm not in favor of making people obey machines. Machines should always obey the people. If pushing the button didn't make me wait through a full cycle of the lights before I get the privilege of walking, I'd be more likely to utilize them. As it is, I simply avoid both walking and driving in Seattle. I've forced job interviewers to meet me outside of Seattle, quite rightly claiming that it's impossible to guarantee that I could be there on time. I have near-universal acceptance of this request except from the largest of firms. D
Thanks for the detailed background. Were you a resident of Seattle when there weren't walk/don't walk signs? I'd enjoy confirming the fact that cross-walk signs are fairly new in Seattle. Also, I respect your sentiment that machines should obey people, not the other way around, but you can't deny the value resulting from people obeying traffic lights when encountering an intersection. The efficient flow of traffic -- both human and vehicular -- requires participation in a cooperative flow management strategy. The intersection traffic lights and walk/don't lights work to very effectively manage that flow. As a driver and pedestrian in Seattle, I can guarantee that people aren't near as good in deciding safe times to cross as you might support with the quantitative evidence of actual impacts. Since the ratio of unsafe crossing to impacts isn't 1:1 (luckily), using it as evidence that people are good at making the decision isn't a valid argument. Despite all of the arguments about personal freedom, the individual's intellectual capacity, and man vs. machine, the problem still remains that this is a simple issue of people thinking that they are too good for the laws that maintain a civil society. It's not a hard law to comply with, and there's no great political statement being made when it is broken.
|
Calendar
QuicksearchCategoriesSocial Network |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||