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.

  • Count Regal Inkwell@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 days 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
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      15 days 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

    • Boomkop3@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days 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

  • frank@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 days 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

  • StarlightDust@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    16 days 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.

  • lseif@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 days ago

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

  • LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    When you can’t train police not to be racist, just give up and make shit legal. What could possibly go wrong?

  • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    16 days 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.

    • drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      16 days 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.

      • murph@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        16 days 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.

      • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 days 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.

    • VonReposti@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 days 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.

      • bstix@feddit.dk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 days ago

        There’s no exact number. The law (færdselsloven §10.5) says “nearby”.

      • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days 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.

    • x00z@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      15 days 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.