Irish law on "jay-walking"

Stovepipe

I saw a jay-cyclist last week. This genius decided to go from Fraser's petrol station in Newbridge to the petshop, without bothering to observe the basic niceties of looking in either direction, across traffic, eyes stuck in an iphone and wearing headphones, completely oblivious. I secretly wished someone would give him a good fright to put manners on him.

regards
Stovepipe

coolemon

There are barely any Zebra crossings in the city centre. I can think of maybe two.

It makes this whole jaywalking law pretty redundant in 99% of cases.

slimjimmc

coolemon wrote: »

There are barely any Zebra crossings in the city centre. I can think of maybe two.

It makes this whole jaywalking law pretty redundant in 99% of cases.

Which city?

coolemon

slimjimmc wrote: »

Which city?

Dublin city centre.

Iwannahurl

coolemon wrote: »

There are barely any Zebra crossings in the city centre. I can think of maybe two.

It makes this whole jaywalking law pretty redundant in 99% of cases.

Precisely.

And I don't recall Conor Faughnan campaigning for more pedestrian crossings either, which would be an excellent solution for the supposed problem of alleged "jay-walking".

Of course this is the same Conor Faughnan who would have us believe that city-centre 30 km/h zones are a bad idea: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055815120

slimjimmc wrote: »

Which city?

Just about everywhere in Ireland, in fact, though I'd be genuinely delighted to hear of exceptions.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Just about everywhere in Ireland, in fact, though I'd be genuinely delighted to hear of exceptions.

Traffic levels, of BOTH motorists AND pedestrians, make Zebra crossings effectively obsolete, because many roads would effectively be unable to carry traffic if they were affected by zebra crossings.

Iwannahurl wrote: »

And the purpose of inconveniencing congestion-busting pedestrians in this manner is what exactly?

Put down zebra crossings all over the place, and pedestrians will be a root cause of congestion.

Iwannahurl

SeanW

I'm not sure what the point of that graphic was, but if it was in response to my post, then it misses some key points:

1. Cars may not be the most efficient form of transport in a central area environment, noone has disputed that hence widespread support for public transport and the like. That being said, it is still necessary to cater for a small degree of traffic.
2. Given the pedestrian volume and frequency in Dublin City, putting down zebra crossings all over the place would cause many junctions to be occupied by pedestrians approaching 100% of the time. That would bring traffic to a standstill, which is why some basic controls are needed. And I speak from first hand experience as a daily pedestrian in the city. That doesn't mean things couldn't be made better for pedestrians, many of the junctions I use could stand some radical improvements.

I speak from first had experience as both a pedestrian and a motorist when I say I welcome zebra crossings on minor routes, but when traffic of either kind is heavier, esp. pedestrians, it gets a lot more complicated than some are making it out to be.

Aard

I disagree with your second point. Zebra crossings are found all over French cities, for example, which typically are more densely populated and see greater numbers of pedestrians. Even access to the infinitely popular Promenade des Anglais in Nice is by zebra crossing in places, and the dual carriageway being crossed seems to function OK.

Iwannahurl

Aard wrote: »

I disagree with your second point. Zebra crossings are found all over French cities, for example, which typically are more densely populated and see greater numbers of pedestrians. Even access to the infinitely popular Promenade des Anglais in Nice is by zebra crossing in places, and the dual carriageway being crossed seems to function OK.

In my personal experience (including while carrying a child) "zebra crossings" in smaller French towns especially are either not pedestrian-priority or else are ignored by many motorists. Those stripes seem to be more of a serving suggestion than a formal crossing.

However, the bigger issue here is transportation/land use policy and the efficient use of space. What many people, including most Irish roads/traffic engineers seemingly, continue to ignore or misunderstand is that in the same road space walking can move almost twenty times as many people as driving. The notion of "jay-walking" -- and the chronic underprovision of proper crossings -- seems to be based on a belief that the most important use of urban road space is to move cars, which is simply irrational imo.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

in smaller French towns especially

That example looks ok.

However, the bigger issue here is transportation/land use policy and the efficient use of space. What many people, including most Irish roads/traffic engineers seemingly, continue to ignore or misunderstand is that in the same road space walking can move almost twenty times as many people as driving.

Only you're comparing apples with oranges because your comparison assumes that:

1. Noone has to travel more than a mile or so at a time.
2. Is fit and looking for an excuse for a workout.
3. Never has to carry more than a bagful of stuff.
4. Is never pressed for time.

No-one is suggesting that we should pursue a Robert Moses-ian vision of getting everyone, to everywhere, by car. But the suggestion that the exact opposite, i.e. no-one, nowhere by car, is also utterly absurd.

The notion of "jay-walking"

Why do you put "jay-walking" in quotes? The term refers to any illegal or unsafe behaviour by pedestrians. Are you saying that pedestrians don't do anything illegal or dangerous?

markpb

SeanW wrote: »

Why do you put "jay-walking" in quotes? The term refers to any illegal or unsafe behaviour by pedestrians. Are you saying that pedestrians don't do anything illegal or dangerous?

Because what most people think is illegal or dangerous by pedestrians is actually legal and would be perfectly safe if more motorists were aware of the law and their obligation to pedestrians.

Iwannahurl

markpb wrote: »

Because what most people think is illegal or dangerous by pedestrians is actually legal and would be perfectly safe if more motorists were aware of the law and their obligation to pedestrians.

The notion of the "jay-walking" pedestrians putting themselves in danger for no good reason is an American invention dating back to the early 21st Century, when a campaign was mounted by the US automobile industry to shift the blame for road deaths onto the victims and to ensure that cars continued to dominate the roads.

Not surprisingly the USA is a place where absurd and utterly unsustainable levels of car use and car dependence have become the norm, and where the number of pedestrian casualties is disproportionate (such as in Delaware, where a third of road deaths in 2012 were of cyclists and pedestrians, despite a very low modal share for walking and cycling). The USA's road safety record is also quite poor in comparison to other developed countries, and it's not hard to find examples of car-culture lunacy such as citizens being arrested for walking and pedestrian victims of collisions being treated as criminals (eg the infamous Raquel Nelson "vehicular homicide" case).

Ireland of course has long been hell-bent on aping the US (and the UK, for some reason) with predictable consequences in terms of car dependence. We've already had an example in this thread of where people wishing to walk along Fleet Street are labelled as "jay-walkers" if they decline to take a 180-metre detour in order to cross Westmoreland Street using the traffic lights as decreed by the engineers/"planners" who laid out the roads for motorised traffic. It is also entirely predictable that Conor Faughnan and the AA would be promoting a view of "jay-walking" that is purely from the driver's perspective.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

The notion of the "jay-walking" pedestrians putting themselves in danger for no good reason is an American invention dating back to the early 21st Century, when a campaign was mounted by the US automobile industry to shift the blame for road deaths onto the victims and to ensure that cars continued to dominate the roads.

Let us be absolutely clear - are you asserting that pedestrians never do anything dangerous or illegal, or are you asserting that pedestrians (and cyclists) should have no responsibility for road safety?

car-culture lunacy such as citizens being arrested for walking

Examples please, without context, this claim could be like the thread in After Hours (Woman faces life in jail for stopping to save ducklings).

It is also entirely predictable that Conor Faughnan and the AA would be promoting a view of "jay-walking" that is purely from the driver's perspective.

The problem is that we have certain entities who are may not be looking for balance, but rather may be looking to simply reverse the alleged imbalance, e.g. by presenting views of jay-walking and other matters purely from an everyone-but-the-driver's perspective.

markpb

SeanW wrote: »

The problem is that we have certain entities who are may not be looking for balance, but rather may be looking to simply reverse the alleged imbalance, e.g. by presenting views of jay-walking and other matters purely from an everyone-but-the-driver's perspective.

What entities do we have that are looking for balance? Everyone is biased somehow.

Aard

@IWH
Mikael Colville-Andersen of Copenhagenise has blog and video posts about the influence of the US auto manufacturing industry of the creation of illegal pedestrian street-crossing. Its really quite fascinating and impressive what they managed to pull off.

Iwannahurl

markpb wrote: »

What entities do we have that are looking for balance? Everyone is biased somehow.

Why "balance" in any case? I think it's essential that values are made explicit, and it is also perfectly acceptable (in fact I would argue it's crucial) that certain things are prioritised.

There are several important reasons to prioritise active travel modes such as walking and cycling, which is why in the Netherlands, for example, there is a policy of "strict liability" which acknowledges the inequality of consequences if a cyclist or pedestrian is struck by a vehicle. Compare that to the situation in New York, for example, where the police and judiciary have consistently neglected their responsibilities towards cyclists.

I see the same sort of attitude every week in my locality, and in fact encountered more of it this very afternoon (two Gardai chatting in the sunshine as they strolled past cars obstructing footpaths, and then accusing me of "being smart" when I asked whether they were going to make a written note of registration numbers).

Iwannahurl

Aard wrote: »

@IWH
Mikael Colville-Andersen of Copenhagenise has blog and video posts about the influence of the US auto manufacturing industry of the creation of illegal pedestrian street-crossing. Its really quite fascinating and impressive what they managed to pull off.

Here we go:

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2012/02/jaywalking-and-motor-age.html

From Ireland:

Transport Minister Noel Dempsey launches a school safety campaign by giving all junior infants classes in Ireland high-visability vests [sic]. He is pictured crossing the road with pupils from St Mary’s NS, Trim."

http://www.meathchronicle.ie/news/trim/articles/2010/11/10/4001477-trim-school-hosts-launch-of-highvis-jackets-campaign/

And in the US:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6ugqW7fFmk

Aard

US jaywalking laws are terrifying.

Iwannahurl

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxfKA95oQXk

monument

More from the US:

Arizona Police Arrest “Jaywalking” Professor in Racially-Charged Incident

Aard

I just read that article and thought of posting it here! It is shocking how such trivial things as they might be viewed in Ireland are taken so seriously in the US.

SeanW

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Why "balance" in any case? I think it's essential that values are made explicit, and it is also perfectly acceptable (in fact I would argue it's crucial) that certain things are prioritised.

So, you're opposed to balance and proportionality. Quelle surprise!

Which is why in the Netherlands, for example, there is a
policy of "strict liability" which acknowledges the inequality of consequences if a cyclist or pedestrian is struck by a vehicle.

So, you think pedestrians and cyclists should be treated the same as the banks were prior to 2008? "Light touch" regulation with total indemnity for their errors, all to be paid for by responsible people (themselves in more regulated industries).

It sounds to me like the road regulations you want are no different to the regulation of Anglo.

I see the same sort of attitude every week in my locality, and in fact encountered more of it this very afternoon (two Gardai chatting in the sunshine as they strolled past cars obstructing footpaths, and then accusing me of "being smart" when I asked whether they were going to make a written note of registration numbers).

At least they have registration numbers to take - what do I do when I'm walking along and my path is blocked by a badly parked bicycle, or someone on a bike cuts me up at a junction?

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Damn straight! 6 year olds shouldn't be out on their own - roads or anywhere else - without supervision.

monument

SeanW wrote: »

At least they have registration numbers to take - what do I do when I'm walking along and my path is blocked by a badly parked bicycle, or someone on a bike cuts me up at a junction?

Is that a parody or what?

How does it matter if there's number plates or not if the gardai are not willing or do not have the support or resources to tackle illegally parked cars?

SeanW

Parody? Not at all. But there are certain issues, interrelated, that make me unsympathetic to poster I was responding to. It matters because motorists are subject to a blistering array of legal requirements (one of which is to carry registration plates, clearly visible), requirements which have been are further still subject to abuse as IWH clearly demonstrates, elsewhere in his post.

We know that certain posters, yourself included, are as keen to punish motorists for legal/responsible behaviour as well as illegal/irresponsible behaviour.
We also know that certain posters are selective in what lawbreaking they will condemn, i.e. only/mainly those of regulated road users, while largely ignoring lawbreaking by participants in the unregulated sector.

So why should I care that IWH saw a motorist parked questionably?