In California, beginning January 1, 2023, whenever you can do it safely.
Gov. Newsom signed a “Freedom to Walk” law on Friday, September 30, 2022, that legalizes jaywalking except when there is “immediate danger of collision” (read story here).
One of the primary motives behind this legislation is cops abusing the jaywalking law by selectively enforcing it against minorities, particularly black people.
In Ferguson, Missouri, the police killing of Michael Brown began with a jaywalking stop. Ferguson was an extreme case: A predominantly-black community run by an all-white city government that financially exploited black residents by ticketing them for everything little thing from jaywalking to not mowing lawns in order to raise money to fund city government. It was out-and-out racketeering, and utterly racist, because white residents weren’t similarly targeted.
California has racist cops, too, so it’s understandable that the California assemblyman who drafted the bill, and the governor in signing it, want to shield their state’s minorities from that kind of harassment.
The assemblyman said, “It should not be a criminal offense to safely cross the street. When expensive tickets and unnecessary confrontations with police impact only certain communities, it’s time to reconsider how we use our law enforcement resources and whether our jaywalking laws really do protect pedestrians.” Of course, I don’t disagree with that.
If you’re a responsible driver, would you like being sued by this guy?
But crosswalks with “Walk” lights exist for a reason. Do we really want pedestrians ambling across busy arterials? And how do you enforce the “danger of collision” proviso?
That’s pretty subjective, and the only way you can really prove what the pedestrian did was dangerous is if he or she got hit by a car.
But even then it’s likely the car driver, not the pedestrian, who will be blamed — especially by the pedestrian’s lawyer. This law opens the door to unfair lawsuits against drivers who did nothing wrong.
Crosswalks and “Walk” lights, on the other hand, are unambiguous: You were either in the crosswalk or you weren’t; you either had the “Walk” light or you didn’t. It’s not left to the slippery judgment of a cop or municipal judge; and it’s harder for a reckless pedestrian to collect an insurance claim.
There’s another factor, too: Car drivers know to be on alert for pedestrians when they approach a crosswalk. But if the entire street is a crosswalk, drivers will be less able to look out for them and anticipate them. Don’t be surprised if the accident rate goes up.
The assemblyman also threw out this tidbit, “Plus, we should be encouraging people to get out of their cars and walk for health and environmental reasons.” However well intentioned his advice, that’s a silly thing to say. I don’t think many people are using cars when they could walk. Many people do walk for exercise and use their cars for errands require a car.
Lecturing a 65-year-old to walk to his cardiologist’s office 15 miles away won’t reduce car usage. This is especially true in California, a state built for wheels, not sneakers, where things are spread out and sidewalks don’t exist in many places. And vulnerable older people may not feel comfortable using public transit or walking if it exposes them to becoming crime victims. For them, driving their own car is safer.
In this world, lots of ideas look good on paper but don’t work in real life. I suspect this is going to be one of those. Driving is necessary for most people, and already stressful enough; we really don’t need scenes like the one in the video below.