[pdonis]

> If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians.

There is a middle ground: the law could say that, while you can't get a ticket just for crossing a street outside the marked crosswalks, if you do cross that way and get hit by a car, the presumption is that you were at fault--whereas, if you get hit by a car while you are in the marked crosswalks, the presumption is that the driver of the car was at fault. That would basically reflect the same presumption that is in our current laws, but it would remove the excuse for cops to mess with people when they haven't caused any harm.

Note that "presumption" does not mean an automatic finding of fault; it just means that whoever is presumed to be at fault has the burden of establishing that they weren't, if they believe they weren't. That's a common situation in law.

In short, making jaywalking itself--crossing a street outside the marked crosswalks--illegal is not about safety at all; it's about local municipalities finding ways to shake down people for money. Just like most traffic laws.

[putnambr]

> if you do cross that way and get hit by a car, the presumption is that you were at fault--whereas, if you get hit by a car while you are in the marked crosswalks, the presumption is that the driver of the car was at fault

I'd be wary of this. A pedestrian's position in the street is hard to prove (and defend) when they're hit by a vehicle. Say someone gets hit and is thrown twenty feet when crossing at an unmarked intersection (which in most municipalities is still a valid crosswalk). It's hard to reconstruct the scene to prove that the ped was in the crosswalk when hit. A safer perspective would to err on the side that the driver is at fault in any instance. You could also argue that the driver has assumed the responsibility of their actions and any mistake they might make before getting behind the wheel.

[pdonis]

> A pedestrian's position in the street is hard to prove (and defend) when they're hit by a vehicle.

This is true today, so how do such cases get handled today in jurisdictions where jaywalking is illegal?

Note that I am not proposing changing the current presumptions of guilt if there has been an accident, only the rule about what cops are allowed to write a ticket for if there hasn't been an accident.

> You could also argue that the driver has assumed the responsibility of their actions and any mistake they might make before getting behind the wheel.

And you could argue that pedestrians have assumed the responsibility of their actions and any mistake they might make when they choose to walk on public sidewalks and cross public roads. I don't see that this helps either way.

[VRay]

if a car hits a pedestrian, the car doesn't get destroyed but the pedestrian's body does

other than that, sure, you're right

[pdonis]

> if a car hits a pedestrian, the car doesn't get destroyed but the pedestrian's body does

See my response to mulman downthread where I talk about a large disparity in costs.

Also, as I said before, this is the case today, under our current legal regime where jaywalking is illegal. So how are cases like this handled today?

[ck425]

In the UK we have a good setup where is a pedestrian walks out it's on the driver to be careful and try stop, therefore the presumption is normally that the driver (or larger vehicle generally so lorry>car>cyclist>pedestrian) is at fault in most cases. It sounds chaotic but in practicality it's balanced by the fact most people don't want to be hit by a car and we teach kids from a young age how to cross roads.

[pdonis]

There are still marked crosswalks in the UK, though, correct? (The only part of the UK I've been in is London and that was years ago, but I remember seeing marked crosswalks and people generally keeping to them when crossing and obeying traffic signals.) Does the presumption that the driver is at fault depend on whether the pedestrian is in a crosswalk or not?

[yw3410]

There are a few for the busy roads, but there are many, many smaller roads with unmarked crossings. In the countryside this is the norm and pedestrians and hikers walk along the road as well.

We even have a few national trails go straight across motorways without crossings!

[ck425]

No. You can use a crosswalk or ignore it as you like. Of course most people use them cause they prefer not to get hit by cars.

[mulmen]

Who is at fault if I am jaywalking but get hit by a car that is speeding?

[pdonis]

In a situation like that, where there is a presumption of fault on both sides, fault would probably end up being split 50-50. Which in practice usually means each party ends up paying their own costs. A large disparity in costs (as would probably be the case in the example you give) might change that, but it would probably end up having to be decided in court.

(Note that what I am describing would be the case under current law wherever jaywalking is illegal, not just under the hypothetical law I described.)

[arctangos]

This middle ground currently governs most interactions between people in cars and people on bicycles. This fails in practice, as criminally irresponsible drivers are able to speed away from crime scenes while their victims are injured, dead, or otherwise incapable of seeking redress.

[geggam]

AZ law

You are

Sec. 19-151. Crossing a roadway. (a) No pedestrian shall cross the roadway within the central business district other than within a marked or unmarked crosswalk. (b) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway outside of the central business district at any point other than within a marked or unmarked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (c) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway where signs or traffic control signals prohibit such crossing.

[throwaway0a5e]

Who's behavior is more abnormal for the place and conditions when the accident happened?

[geggam]

Arizona has this law.

If you get hit jaywalking its your fault.

We also have stupid motorist law where if you drive in a flooded area you have to pay the cost to rescue you