[alexjplant]

> My logic is 'crossing the road is completely reasonable, doesn't harm anyone, people should be allowed to get to the other side of the road'. That logic doesn't follow to speeding, which is dangerous and selfish.

Putting oneself in the path of a multi-ton vehicle that doesn't expect you to be there and placing the onus on them to avoid committing vehicular manslaughter when you could use a space explicitly designated for pedestrians is, in fact, dangerous and selfish.

[chrisseaton]

Why is your default that the road belongs to the car in the first place? Why should people need to stick to limited spaces 'designated' for them? How do you think we manage it in the UK without these laws and why do you think our road-death rate is lower?

[Chris2048]

In the UK, It's not legal to cross a motorway, and non-compliance with the highway code could work against you in a civil court case.

The higher road-death rate in the US might be the reason these laws exist, rather than a symptom of the laws - or are you suggesting that making jaywalking a crime increases road deaths?

[BuyMyBitcoins]

>” Why is your default that the road belongs to the car in the first place?”

I’d say it’s because the roads are obviously designed to accommodate automobile traffic. Virtually all modern roads are absolutely designed car-first and it’s apparent that people on-foot aren’t meant to travel on them, except on the sidewalk.

Additionally, a “road” that is only for people and bicycles is typically just called a trail or a path. At least that’s the case where I live. If it’s surrounded by buildings then they call it a plaza.

[true_religion]

Cars aren’t fully autonomous yet. There are people in those cars who have just as much right to tax payer funded roads while in a car as they do on their feet.

The deciding factor should be if the law contributes to civil order, or reduces injury.

[chrisseaton]

> There are people in those cars who have just as much right to tax payer funded roads while in a car as they do on their feet.

But you want to ban the pedestrians from the road - you don’t want ‘just as much right’ to the road - you want more right to it. You want the entire length of a block and think pedestrians should just have tiny crossing points.

> The deciding factor should be if the law contributes to civil order, or reduces injury.

But it doesn’t - we do fine without it in the UK.

[true_religion]

I actually don’t want anything. Different cities, states, and communities can make their own decisions on if pedestrians should be on roads or bike paths.

I’m just against the framing of this as cars vs. people.

[readflaggedcomm]

As an aside: when I jaywalk, it's because the cars are more predictable than at nearby intersections. Drivers don't always expect pedestrians, and when they start to move when I don't expect, I have no way to predict that or defend myself.

I guess traveling safely is unpopular on HN, just like in SF.