Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KTLA Los Angeles)   JAY, I'm walkin' here   (ktla.com) divider line
    More: PSA, Law, new law, San Francisco Bay Area, California, San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, Act of Congress, Jaywalking  
•       •       •

4002 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Oct 2022 at 10:17 PM (17 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

 
2022-10-01 10:29:33 PM  
11 votes:
California hits record number of pedestrian deaths in 2021.  Highest in 40 years!

Is this a job creation scheme or way to make housing available?
 
2022-10-01 3:48:19 PM  
7 votes:
Sometimes my state is embarrassingly dumb
 
2022-10-01 10:26:28 PM  
7 votes:
moviesandmania.comView Full Size

This was NOT a documentary.
 
2022-10-01 11:15:48 PM  
5 votes:

neilbradley: most pedestrian fatalities or injuries wouldn't happen if they'd pay attention to their surroundings.


B.s. I've driven 400K miles. If you hit ANYTHING or ANYONE, THAT is your fault.  And. If you actually read the drivers book. I'm not sure why anyone thinks so.
 
2022-10-01 3:45:52 PM  
4 votes:
Name it after the clean cut black kid the police farked with in Westwood in the 80s for jay walking.  Also, get ready for tickets for not yielding right of way to pedestrians in unmarked crosswalks.
 
2022-10-01 10:21:19 PM  
4 votes:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Sometimes my state is embarrassingly dumb


I know right, like when they had a law that was just on the books to harass minorities.
 
2022-10-01 10:23:39 PM  
4 votes:
Yeah, you're gonna get run over.
 
2022-10-01 11:23:57 PM  
4 votes:

neilbradley: waxbeans: waxbeans: neilbradley: most pedestrian fatalities or injuries wouldn't happen if they'd pay attention to their surroundings.

B.s. I've driven 400K miles. If you hit ANYTHING or ANYONE, THAT is your fault.  And. If you actually read the drivers book. I'm not sure why anyone thinks so.

^I'm not sure why anyone thinks otherwise

Yeah, exactly. Also, that person is still dead even if they had right a way. This is why who is right doesn't matter a damn.


Jail some people and people will drive better
 
2022-10-01 10:37:06 PM  
3 votes:

maxandgrinch: California hits record number of pedestrian deaths in 2021.  Highest in 40 years!

Is this a job creation scheme or way to make housing available?


I like how they paint that as a problem with drivers, and not pedestrians glued to their phones and walking into traffic.
 
2022-10-01 11:16:52 PM  
3 votes:

waxbeans: neilbradley: most pedestrian fatalities or injuries wouldn't happen if they'd pay attention to their surroundings.

B.s. I've driven 400K miles. If you hit ANYTHING or ANYONE, THAT is your fault.  And. If you actually read the drivers book. I'm not sure why anyone thinks so.


^I'm not sure why anyone thinks otherwise
 
2022-10-01 11:42:05 PM  
3 votes:
Great! I just realized that between derps walking out between 2 parked cars and a move to silent EVs, California will become the land of the dead pedestrian and locked up motorists.
Again, I will never vote Repugnican but Newsom's gotta go!
 
2022-10-01 11:54:56 PM  
3 votes:

neilbradley: waxbeans: neilbradley: Laws are no replacement for looking where the hell you're going.

???? I'm saying that to idiots that hit people.

1) Motorists, obey all traffic and pedestrian laws, and watch out for pedestrians
2) Pedestrians, assume everyone is out to kill you and look where you're going and don't assume laws will protect you

Easy. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.


????? No. Considering what is required to drive there is actually no explanation for hitting a person.  If you hit some one, car or body, you wasn't paying attention.  Period.  GTFO
 
2022-10-01 11:58:59 PM  
3 votes:

neilbradley: waxbeans: neilbradley: waxbeans: neilbradley: Laws are no replacement for looking where the hell you're going.

???? I'm saying that to idiots that hit people.

1) Motorists, obey all traffic and pedestrian laws, and watch out for pedestrians
2) Pedestrians, assume everyone is out to kill you and look where you're going and don't assume laws will protect you

Easy. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

????? No. Considering what is required to drive there is actually no explanation for hitting a person.  If you hit some one, car or body, you wasn't paying attention.  Period.  GTFO

It's often but not always the case. People walk out between two cars in front of traffic. Pedestrians cross wearing dark clothing at night where there's no time to react. But as I've repeatedly said, it doesn't bloody matter who is at fault when someone is dead. Assume everyone's going to kill you and you might end up, you know, not dead. But if you want to keep assuming the law will protect you and you're obsessed with who is right and wrong, be my guest. I'd rather be alive.


???????? No. Drivers have no excuse.  No different than DWI.
 
2022-10-02 12:05:24 AM  
3 votes:

neilbradley: waxbeans: neilbradley: waxbeans: neilbradley: waxbeans: neilbradley: Laws are no replacement for looking where the hell you're going.

???? I'm saying that to idiots that hit people.

1) Motorists, obey all traffic and pedestrian laws, and watch out for pedestrians
2) Pedestrians, assume everyone is out to kill you and look where you're going and don't assume laws will protect you

Easy. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

????? No. Considering what is required to drive there is actually no explanation for hitting a person.  If you hit some one, car or body, you wasn't paying attention.  Period.  GTFO

It's often but not always the case. People walk out between two cars in front of traffic. Pedestrians cross wearing dark clothing at night where there's no time to react. But as I've repeatedly said, it doesn't bloody matter who is at fault when someone is dead. Assume everyone's going to kill you and you might end up, you know, not dead. But if you want to keep assuming the law will protect you and you're obsessed with who is right and wrong, be my guest. I'd rather be alive.

???????? No. Drivers have no excuse.  No different than DWI.

Wow, dude. You're kind of underscoring my point. But please, keep walking out in front of traffic because laws will protect you. Good luck with that.


????
You are defending murder.  So. I'm not sure why i should back down.
 
2022-10-02 12:31:37 AM  
3 votes:
Frogger - Seinfeld Live Frogger
Youtube xk1RkMGvBIk
geez, do I have to do all the work around here?
 
2022-10-01 10:20:29 PM  
2 votes:
Adam Ruins Everything - Why Jaywalking Is a Crime
Youtube -AFn7MiJz_s
you all have been programed to run over people you turds
 
2022-10-01 10:40:40 PM  
2 votes:

princhester: Explain this to me like I'm not from California (because I'm not).

Surely it was not illegal to cross any street except at a crosswalk?   Even quiet suburban streets?  Even if there is no crosswalk for miles?

Or is this article being a bit lax in its description of what was formerly illegal?

Where I'm from, it's only illegal to cross if there is a crosswalk nearby that you could have used.


The present statute that is being replaced is as follows:

California Vehicle Code 21955: Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.

Basically, if there is a street between two corners that have a stop sign or signal, you can only cross at the corners in the crosswalk.  As a practical matter, no one does this, and it gives the right of police to stop someone as a pretext and they almost always are minorities unless the officer is bored or the city is looking for income from tickets.
 
2022-10-01 10:58:15 PM  
2 votes:
Best I can do is Jaydancing.

thumbs.gfycat.comView Full Size
 
2022-10-01 11:05:36 PM  
2 votes:

LurkerSupreme: The attitudes some Californians have regarding crossing the street mystify me. I was visiting a friend of mine in San Francisco, and while we were crossing the street he noticed I picked up the pace in order to get out of the road as quickly as possible. Which prompted him to ask "why are you doing that? Pedestrians have the right-of-way here!" As if making sure to look both ways and not dawdle in the middle of the street was a weird and pointless habit to have in California.

///Yes pedestrians have the right-of-way, as it should be
//But that doesn't mean a pedestrian should feel entitled to a leisurely attitude when crossing streets
/Or lose sight of how much your average car, driven by a potentially distracted driver, outweighs them


You sound like a Texan.  We let drivers run people over. And blame the  Pedestrian.
As long as you don't leave the scene of the accident you will get away with hitting somebody with your car
 
2022-10-01 11:20:19 PM  
2 votes:

gunther_bumpass: TheYeti: Well, you can't change the laws of physics.

laws of physics
laws of physics


Here lies John Doe. He had right of way.
 
2022-10-01 11:44:16 PM  
2 votes:
They should decriminalize pointing guns at the police. That one leads to a bunch of shootings.
 
2022-10-02 12:03:33 AM  
2 votes:

neilbradley: waxbeans: neilbradley: waxbeans: neilbradley: Laws are no replacement for looking where the hell you're going.

???? I'm saying that to idiots that hit people.

1) Motorists, obey all traffic and pedestrian laws, and watch out for pedestrians
2) Pedestrians, assume everyone is out to kill you and look where you're going and don't assume laws will protect you

Easy. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

????? No. Considering what is required to drive there is actually no explanation for hitting a person.  If you hit some one, car or body, you wasn't paying attention.  Period.  GTFO

It's often but not always the case. People walk out between two cars in front of traffic. Pedestrians cross wearing dark clothing at night where there's no time to react. But as I've repeatedly said, it doesn't bloody matter who is at fault when someone is dead. Assume everyone's going to kill you and you might end up, you know, not dead. But if you want to keep assuming the law will protect you and you're obsessed with who is right and wrong, be my guest. I'd rather be alive.


The thing isn't a driving  parallel that matches striking a pedestrian doesn't  Exist.
Which means we're actively ignoring facts.  The requirements of driving means it's  inexcusable.
 
2022-10-01 10:36:03 PM  
1 vote:
Explain this to me like I'm not from California (because I'm not).

Surely it was not illegal to cross any street except at a crosswalk?   Even quiet suburban streets?  Even if there is no crosswalk for miles?

Or is this article being a bit lax in its description of what was formerly illegal?

Where I'm from, it's only illegal to cross if there is a crosswalk nearby that you could have used.
 
2022-10-01 10:37:39 PM  
1 vote:

maxandgrinch: California hits record number of pedestrian deaths in 2021.  Highest in 40 years!

Is this a job creation scheme or way to make housing available?


How many of those deaths were attributable to jaywalking, and how many to drivers failing to yield to pedestrians crossing legally (or walking along a road with no sidewalks, etc)?  And how effective was the old law in deterring jaywalking?
 
2022-10-01 10:43:31 PM  
1 vote:
Well, you can't change the laws of physics.
 
2022-10-01 10:45:44 PM  
1 vote:

TheYeti: Well, you can't change the laws of physics.


laws of physics
laws of physics
 
2022-10-01 10:48:50 PM  
1 vote:

Daedalus27: princhester: Explain this to me like I'm not from California (because I'm not).

Surely it was not illegal to cross any street except at a crosswalk?   Even quiet suburban streets?  Even if there is no crosswalk for miles?

Or is this article being a bit lax in its description of what was formerly illegal?

Where I'm from, it's only illegal to cross if there is a crosswalk nearby that you could have used.

The present statute that is being replaced is as follows:

California Vehicle Code 21955: Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.

Basically, if there is a street between two corners that have a stop sign or signal, you can only cross at the corners in the crosswalk.  As a practical matter, no one does this, and it gives the right of police to stop someone as a pretext and they almost always are minorities unless the officer is bored or the city is looking for income from tickets.


And don't call him Shirley.
 
2022-10-01 10:53:02 PM  
1 vote:
 
2022-10-01 10:54:09 PM  
1 vote:
 
2022-10-01 10:56:26 PM  
1 vote:
 
2022-10-01 10:58:40 PM  
1 vote:

Me so thorny: Freschel: Badmoodman: JAY, I'm walkin' here


[Fark user image 498x463] [View Full Size image _x_]

[YouTube video: Missing Persons - Walking In L.A.]

Earworm most play song to get rid of it.

What's with the guy running around in an N95 mask at 2:53?


He was at a "festival" that "featured" Missing Persons badly lip-synching "Walking in LA". I would be concerned with regards to my health if I found myself to be in his position.
 
2022-10-01 11:01:08 PM  
1 vote:

mcmnky: Daedalus27: princhester: Explain this to me like I'm not from California (because I'm not).

Surely it was not illegal to cross any street except at a crosswalk?   Even quiet suburban streets?  Even if there is no crosswalk for miles?

Or is this article being a bit lax in its description of what was formerly illegal?

Where I'm from, it's only illegal to cross if there is a crosswalk nearby that you could have used.

The present statute that is being replaced is as follows:

California Vehicle Code 21955: Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.

Basically, if there is a street between two corners that have a stop sign or signal, you can only cross at the corners in the crosswalk.  As a practical matter, no one does this, and it gives the right of police to stop someone as a pretext and they almost always are minorities unless the officer is bored or the city is looking for income from tickets.

And don't call him Shirley.


Harrumph!

wait... wat...
 
2022-10-01 11:02:06 PM  
1 vote:

maxandgrinch: California hits record number of pedestrian deaths in 2021.  Highest in 40 years!

Is this a job creation scheme or way to make housing available?


I dunno, but point values doubled.
 
2022-10-01 11:10:08 PM  
1 vote:
 
2022-10-01 11:11:25 PM  
1 vote:

waxbeans: LurkerSupreme: The attitudes some Californians have regarding crossing the street mystify me. I was visiting a friend of mine in San Francisco, and while we were crossing the street he noticed I picked up the pace in order to get out of the road as quickly as possible. Which prompted him to ask "why are you doing that? Pedestrians have the right-of-way here!" As if making sure to look both ways and not dawdle in the middle of the street was a weird and pointless habit to have in California.

///Yes pedestrians have the right-of-way, as it should be
//But that doesn't mean a pedestrian should feel entitled to a leisurely attitude when crossing streets
/Or lose sight of how much your average car, driven by a potentially distracted driver, outweighs them

You sound like a Texan.  We let drivers run people over. And blame the  Pedestrian.
As long as you don't leave the scene of the accident you will get away with hitting somebody with your car


You called it, born and raised in Dallas. Though I've since moved to Colorado because I have a profound distaste for hot humid weather.
 
2022-10-01 11:13:08 PM  
1 vote:

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Sometimes my state is embarrassingly dumb


it's all relative. is your state more embarrassingly dumb than Texas? uhhhhh, no. then stop saying such things.
 
2022-10-01 11:25:07 PM  
1 vote:

waxbeans: neilbradley: gunther_bumpass: TheYeti: Well, you can't change the laws of physics.

laws of physics
laws of physics

Here lies John Doe. He had right of way.

And yet, you can't run lights, must stop at stop signs, can't ram into other cars. Can't speed. Not even to pass.


And when people f up and do those things anyway, and when they do, people die. Why is this such a hard concept to understand? Laws are no replacement for looking where the hell you're going.
 
2022-10-01 11:49:29 PM  
1 vote:

neilbradley: Laws are no replacement for looking where the hell you're going.


???? I'm saying that to idiots that hit people.
 
2022-10-02 12:04:13 AM  
1 vote:

waxbeans: neilbradley: waxbeans: neilbradley: waxbeans: neilbradley: Laws are no replacement for looking where the hell you're going.

???? I'm saying that to idiots that hit people.

1) Motorists, obey all traffic and pedestrian laws, and watch out for pedestrians
2) Pedestrians, assume everyone is out to kill you and look where you're going and don't assume laws will protect you

Easy. They are not mutually exclusive concepts.

????? No. Considering what is required to drive there is actually no explanation for hitting a person.  If you hit some one, car or body, you wasn't paying attention.  Period.  GTFO

It's often but not always the case. People walk out between two cars in front of traffic. Pedestrians cross wearing dark clothing at night where there's no time to react. But as I've repeatedly said, it doesn't bloody matter who is at fault when someone is dead. Assume everyone's going to kill you and you might end up, you know, not dead. But if you want to keep assuming the law will protect you and you're obsessed with who is right and wrong, be my guest. I'd rather be alive.

The thing isn't a driving  parallel that matches striking a pedestrian doesn't  Exist.
Which means we're actively ignoring facts.  The requirements of driving means it's  inexcusable.


^The thing is a driving
 
2022-10-02 12:08:59 AM  
1 vote:

neilbradley: .

The thing isn't a driving  parallel that matches striking a pedestrian doesn't  Exist.
Which means we're actively ignoring facts.  The requirements of driving means it's  inexcusable.

Never said it was excusable. But do you want to wind up dead? This is how you wind up dead. We call it being "dead right".


? I'm almost 50. Haven't driven in a decade.  Have walked all my life. I regularly see drivers not paying attention.  At all. Zero. I've seen drivers where it's clear they didn't know i was there.  I've seen people speed up willfully.  I've seen people ignore me in the crosswalk.  And I've cained their car. And I've had had to do worse when that upset them.
 
2022-10-02 12:15:00 AM  
1 vote:
Come on, buddy.  You can make it!

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-10-02 12:22:18 AM  
1 vote:

neilbradley: .

You should back down because you, as a pedestrian, should value self preservation. Yeah, asshole drivers are out there. You think everyone's just going to magically stop making mistakes because you have right of way? Maybe if you had driven you'd see pedestrians fark up as often as well. Drive in Portland in an afternoon and you'll see all kinds of people wandering out in traffic without looking, against the light, etc... Guess they don't value their lives.

The fact is, there are careless pedestrians and careless drivers. So protect yourself by watching where the hell you're going. Always. IT DOES NOT MEAN I'M DEFENDING MURDER OR THE MOTORISTS AREN'T AT FAULT, YOU CLOD.


I drove 400K, before I decided that car ownership wasn't for me. I got tired of the stuff that breaks.

And don't do the right of way thing. But. If I'm in the crosswalk and you ignore that, I have no choice but to hit your car with my cain. Or peg your car with a nut and bolt 🔩 I carry; or worse.  Because almost hitting me is aggressive if you ask me.  I take not seeing me as neglect on your part.  Why? Because I wear neon.
 
2022-10-02 12:26:08 AM  
1 vote:

neilbradley: But if you want to keep assuming the law will protect you and you're obsessed with who is right and wrong, be my guest. I'd rather be alive.


Except no one is doing that.  It's a strawman.  The most people are saying is "its always the driver's fault" [a blanket assertion with which I disagree, for the record].

Nobody here is saying "I step out between dark cars at night while wearing dark clothing and the law will save me".  Nobody.

Your eagerness to strawman to this effect implies something.  You work out what. Idgaf.  But when someone needs to strawman it means something is going on in their head.
 
2022-10-02 12:37:02 AM  
1 vote:

neilbradley: Do everything in your power to NOT BE KILLED.


I got to almost 50? Running in traffic? No. But. I can only do so much about people who aren't paying attention.  Don't respect crosswalks.  And who speed up on purpose.  And who are on their phones.  Talking on phones. Looking at maps. Can't see over the dashboard.  And on and on. And, who feel entitled to run people over. And who have people like you carry water for them.

No.
This is no explanation for Running people over.  Not if you actually read the book the dmv publishes.

Period.
It is murder. And too many people defend it.

I'm no going to apologize for logging 400k driving miles and not killing some fark.
And I do in fact consider people who hit and kill people to be murders. And I'm not changing my farking mind.
If a loved one ran someone over and killed them, I badger them till they died.
 
2022-10-02 1:07:41 AM  
1 vote:

neilbradley: princhester: neilbradley: But if you want to keep assuming the law will protect you and you're obsessed with who is right and wrong, be my guest. I'd rather be alive.

Except no one is doing that.  It's a strawman.  The most people are saying is "its always the driver's fault" [a blanket assertion with which I disagree, for the record].

Nobody here is saying "I step out between dark cars at night while wearing dark clothing and the law will save me".  Nobody.

Your eagerness to strawman to this effect implies something.  You work out what. Idgaf.  But when someone needs to strawman it means something is going on in their head.

I think you're confusing me with the other poster. Waxbeans is strawmanning me.


I don't think so.  Find a post that says "I assume the law will protect me and behave accordingly when crossing the road".  I'm not seeing one.   Perhaps I'm wrong.
 
2022-10-02 1:11:54 AM  
1 vote:

neilbradley: waxbeans: neilbradley: .

I think you're confusing me with the other poster. Waxbeans is strawmanning me.

No.
I saying, if you read the dmv book, there is no explanation for hitting a  Pedestrian.
We just chose to ignore that FACT.

I've already pointed out to you - repeatedly - there is no defense for negligent driving. And there are rare circumstances where people will get hit regardless that I and others have already pointed out, but you've chosen to ignore them. And you apparently don't have a self preservation instinct since you feel threatened by mentioning that it might be in the pedestrian's best interest to be aware of their surroundings and look where they're going.

At this point I'm just going to assume you're a troll or are too thick headed to understand the concept.


There actually separate issues.
For example you can't shoot and kill someone just because their already falling out a window 100 stories up.
I'm almost 50. I walk to the grocery store miles away. I wear neon. So. I'm not sure why you assume I run in traffic or risk my life. I mostly don't.  As much as I can.  Given that I refuse to own a car. And the bus system makes a 2 mile walk take 30 minutes to start and cost actual money.
I won't say I have self preservation. But. I'm vary unlucky.  So. I'll repeat i don't run in traffic.  And u regularly see how awful everyone drives.
 
2022-10-02 1:13:38 AM  
1 vote:

waxbeans: neilbradley: waxbeans: neilbradley: .

I think you're confusing me with the other poster. Waxbeans is strawmanning me.

No.
I saying, if you read the dmv book, there is no explanation for hitting a  Pedestrian.
We just chose to ignore that FACT.

I've already pointed out to you - repeatedly - there is no defense for negligent driving. And there are rare circumstances where people will get hit regardless that I and others have already pointed out, but you've chosen to ignore them. And you apparently don't have a self preservation instinct since you feel threatened by mentioning that it might be in the pedestrian's best interest to be aware of their surroundings and look where they're going.

At this point I'm just going to assume you're a troll or are too thick headed to understand the concept.

There actually separate issues.
For example you can't shoot and kill someone just because their already falling out a window 100 stories up.
I'm almost 50. I walk to the grocery store miles away. I wear neon. So. I'm not sure why you assume I run in traffic or risk my life. I mostly don't.  As much as I can.  Given that I refuse to own a car. And the bus system makes a 2 mile walk take 30 minutes to start and cost actual money.
I won't say I have self preservation. But. I'm vary unlucky.  So. I'll repeat i don't run in traffic.  And u regularly see how awful everyone drives.


And u regularly see how awful everyone drives.

^And I regularly see how awful everyone drives.
 
2022-10-02 1:26:57 AM  
1 vote:

johnny_vegas: waxbeans: johnny_vegas: waxbeans: johnny_vegas: waxbeans: neilbradley: most pedestrian fatalities or injuries wouldn't happen if they'd pay attention to their surroundings.

B.s. I've driven 400K miles. If you hit ANYTHING or ANYONE, THAT is your fault.  And. If you actually read the drivers book. I'm not sure why anyone thinks so.

If crosswalks are present and you choose not use it, you have to give the vehicle the right of way.  In Texas anyway.

Does the law say you can ram into a vehicle that is impeding traffic?
🙄

Rather than allow you to move the goalposts, I'll refer you to page 61z
https://m.driving-tests.org/texas/tx-dmv-drivers-handbook-manual/

Yield the Right-of-Way to Pedestrians (Persons on Foot)
Avoid Turning a Car into a Deadly Weapon
You should always be on the lookout for individuals who are on foot (pedestrians) whether they have the right-of-way or not. Drivers 
must give the right-of-way to pedestrians:
1. At an uncontrolled intersection (there are not any traffic signs or signals for the pedestrian to enter the crosswalk)
2. If the pedestrian has a WALK signal or
a. If there is not a pedestrian control signal, give the pedestrian the right-of-way on a green light. 
b. If the light changes after the pedestrian has entered the crosswalk, still give the pedestrian the right-of-way.

Try these.
5.If you cross a street at any point other than within a crosswalk at an intersection, you (the pedestrian) must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles.
6.If you cross a street without using a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing which has been provided, you (the pedestrian) must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles.

[i.gifer.com image 245x175]


And? It's illogical.  Because like I said, we aren't allowed to ram into other vehicles.  Only people apparently.  Which i already know.  Did you see the news articles i posted that say as much?
I perfectly OK in Texas to run over people.
That being a fact doesn't mean I have to defend it. And it Don't mean I shouldn't try to change that.  And I sure as hell will point out it doesn't make sense.
 
2022-10-02 1:43:37 AM  
1 vote:

johnny_vegas: .

There are a couple situations where a pedestrian must give the right of way and if struck the driver may not be at fault.
Sorry if that rustles your jimmies.


What can i say. I don't even support the death penalty.  (Mostly)

I'll make exceptions for DWI.
 
2022-10-02 1:50:58 AM  
1 vote:

waxbeans: johnny_vegas: .

There are a couple situations where a pedestrian must give the right of way and if struck the driver may not be at fault.
Sorry if that rustles your jimmies.

What can i say. I don't even support the death penalty.  (Mostly)

I'll make exceptions for DWI.


*shrug* knock yourself out
 
2022-10-02 3:29:09 AM  
1 vote:
In three years, when the state realizes that a disproportionate number of pedestrians are being hit by cars, the state is going to wonder why and how they can fix it.
 
2022-10-02 4:06:49 AM  
1 vote:
As a non-American it's quite amusing to read the posts here that seem to be suggesting that the pedestrian death rate will climb significantly as a consequence of this law - when it's been the law in most other countries forever.

Maybe you should drive: We have three cases where folks were initially stopped for jaywalking and the situations led to terrible ends. That's bad.  But instead of dealing with that, we change the law to say people can jaywalk as long as they think it's safe to do so.  I have no doubt this will lead to several pedestrians dying in car accidents.


Firstly, from a non-American POV, you're very language is instructive and bemusing.  You talk about jaywalking like crossing a road is inherently against the natural order and that permitting people to decide for themselves that it's safe for them to cross the road is outrageous.  I think you'll find it to the rest of the world, it being completely permissible to cross a road is the default, and normal.

But then California is renowned for its motor vehicle worship.

Secondly, much as it may seem harsh to say it out loud, preventing people's deaths is not an absolute priority.  Liberty and justice have to weigh in the scales to at least some extent.  There is a balancing of priorities involved between giving people the liberty to cross the road, and preventing people from putting themselves in danger.  And having a crime on the books that is abused for the persecution of minorities has to weigh into the equation also.  Then also, people who are going to be killed crossing the road are (absent driver malfeasance) going to be victims of their own negligence.

To me it's no surprise that most countries around the world have concluded that the cost/benefit analysis favours allowing people to cross the road outside crosswalks.

I think your perspective is limited.
 
2022-10-02 8:46:24 AM  
1 vote:

ArcadianRefugee: johnny_vegas: waxbeans: johnny_vegas: waxbeans: johnny_vegas: waxbeans: neilbradley: most pedestrian fatalities or injuries wouldn't happen if they'd pay attention to their surroundings.

B.s. I've driven 400K miles. If you hit ANYTHING or ANYONE, THAT is your fault.  And. If you actually read the drivers book. I'm not sure why anyone thinks so.

If crosswalks are present and you choose not use it, you have to give the vehicle the right of way.  In Texas anyway.

Does the law say you can ram into a vehicle that is impeding traffic?
🙄

Rather than allow you to move the goalposts, I'll refer you to page 61z
https://m.driving-tests.org/texas/tx-dmv-drivers-handbook-manual/

Yield the Right-of-Way to Pedestrians (Persons on Foot)
Avoid Turning a Car into a Deadly Weapon
You should always be on the lookout for individuals who are on foot (pedestrians) whether they have the right-of-way or not. Drivers 
must give the right-of-way to pedestrians:
1. At an uncontrolled intersection (there are not any traffic signs or signals for the pedestrian to enter the crosswalk)
2. If the pedestrian has a WALK signal or
a. If there is not a pedestrian control signal, give the pedestrian the right-of-way on a green light. 
b. If the light changes after the pedestrian has entered the crosswalk, still give the pedestrian the right-of-way.

Try these.
5.If you cross a street at any point other than within a crosswalk at an intersection, you (the pedestrian) must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles.
6.If you cross a street without using a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing which has been provided, you (the pedestrian) must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles.

[i.gifer.com image 245x175] [View Full Size image _x_]

Or, no.

Pedestrians have the right of way.  Always.


You should lobby to get the actual truth changed to what you prefer.
 
2022-10-02 1:03:12 PM  
1 vote:
Got arrested in Cincinnati in '87 for jaywalking.  Going back to my hotel after a night out with my college girlfriend and her old high school friends.  I was staying in a hotel because her parents didn't want an olive-skinned Brazilian staying at their house.  3am, 4-lane avenue, not a soul or car in sight.  I crossed the road, kept walking a few more blocks, then saw the blue & red lights behind me with someone barking orders over a PA system.  2 police cruisers, and 4 big officers with guns pointed at a 5'6" 130lbs goth kid for the crime of "jaywalking while latin".  They handcuffed me and took me to the station all the time asking me about my legal status.  Had to call her parents house at 4am (keep in mind they already hated me before that) so they could drive her to the hotel to retrieve my passport and bring it to the station.
 
Displayed 54 of 54 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.