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.

    • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      57
      ·
      2 months ago

      Eh, keeping car traffic smooth is way more challenging than keeping pedestrian traffic smooth. Also people tend to be more chaotic in there direction than cars. If a car stops in front of you you’re sorta stuck if a human stops in front of you you can always bash him in the head with a bar stool or go around or whatever.

      I know it was auto manufacturers lobbying for the law but can you imagine people just randomly darting across an interstate moving at 80+ mph? I can because I have seen it before and not once have I thought wow I sure am glad that’s legal.

      • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        59
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think you might have picked a bad community to share your sympathies for smooth car traffic, I’m afraid.

        For what it’s worth, I think it’s reasonable enough to forbid pedestrians from crossing high-speed (60+ mph) roads, but otherwise they should have full right of way over any road, and fuck the cars. They can just be patient and deal with it.

        • SatouKazuma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          But what if those roads didn’t have to exist at all. We could replace those with dedicated high speed rail corridors.

        • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Maybe, but the alternative is unrealistic and simply not the reality we Live in.(at least in the United States)

          • drake@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s how every progressive movement starts, until activists make them reality. If it’s a good idea, it’s a good idea - and if that’s not the way that things are done, the question stops being “is this a good idea”, and starts being “how can we implement this good idea”.

        • Lightor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          What, wait, no. I’ve lived in very rural areas, wtf was I supposed to do without a car? Bike back and forth a few hours for groceries?

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            There will always be edge cases. The trick is that your scenario ought to be an edge case rather than the most common case.

            Some one is free to search actual numbers but in the US something like

            • 50% of the population is urban

            • 75% of the population is suburban or urban

            For sure different transit or walking options are better for different scenarios but most people, including in the US, are in places where buses or trains can be useful

            • Lightor@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              So people should only live in dense, crowded cities? Because even in the suburbs it’s not possible to grocery shop without a car.

              • SatouKazuma@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 months ago

                Suburbs can ultimately be redesigned (and I’d argue they should, for a number of reasons)

                • Lightor@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  Yeah but until then a man’s gotta eat lol and I don’t see them putting grocery stores every 2 miles any time soon.

                  • SatouKazuma@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Given most grocery stores compete more than anything on location, that does surprise me, but you’re not wrong.

      • SatouKazuma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        I will never be sad when car brains like you learn the hard way that cars are nothing but weapons. This is exactly why cars should be completely illegal, full stop.

        • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Ok, Let’s assume you are perfectly correct in every way, Now according to your hypothesis Cars have no purpose other than being a weapon, now since cars exist at least for the moment, it is probably for the best to make it illegal to dash across shooting ranges.

          • DarkThoughts@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            You see, here’s the problem. It’s not actually a shooting range. Streets weren’t made for cars, but for people. Before cars you’d see humans, carriages, horses, etc. all coexisting within the same space.

            • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              You think in a legally licensed clearly posted shooting rang someone darting through the range illegally should be allowed to retaliate?

              • SatouKazuma@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Yes, because it would hopefully discourage car brains like yourself from wasting space in cities.