I’m walking here!’: jaywalking legalized in New York City | The Guardian
I’m walking here!’: jaywalking legalized in New York City | The Guardian
New law, letting people cross street outside of crosswalk, ends racial disparities in enforcement, council member says
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
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
Ditching cars should be done everywhere (not just in populated cities).
Agree, but it's certainly easier to do in NYC than rural places in the US, so I advocate for starting there
Sure.
At least in North America, around 80% of the population lives in a populated area. That means even if we only eliminate cars for urban areas, that's still most of the cars removed. The only way I see people in rural areas getting around without a car would be with electric cargo bikes and robust train routes.
Buses would be the short term solution except for the really far out rural areas, during the time in which far out exurbs and suburbs are redesigned for maximum density.
do you really expect people in rural areas to ditch cars?
will they go back to carts and horses?
The US used to have a comprehensive rail network. Every single town had a train station. We already had the solution to this problem.
I live in a rail hub in the us. The city is nicknamed after it and train tracks literally run through the city center.
It would take me 6 hours to walk there.
If it takes 6 hours to walk across your city it's not rural. Your city needs comprehensive public transportation.
I think he means it would take six hours of walking to reach his city. I mean I live four miles outside of town (which incidentally I'd need to travel to to reach a railroad) and even though it's smaller than 3000 people it still calls its self a "city". Also I'd like to note it's four miles of hilly terrain, which depending on season may feature hundred degree plus temperatures or foot deep snow.
I live about ten miles outside the nearby city.
However my town has a train station. From my neighborhood of single family homes, I can walk about 20 minutes, or a bus drives by regularly to get me to the town center which includes the train station
I’m certainly not rural, but there’s no reason my scenario can’t apply to 80% of the population if more cities/towns were designed for it.
And this is in the US
Please tell me you're exaggerating. I live in a small city and it only takes me maybe an hour to walk across town. If it's taking you 6 hours, it's not rural.
and what do you use to get to the train station?
how do you carry goods to that station? Does your train have a stop in every farm?
Wow you're right there is a use case for a vehicle therefore it's literally impossible to have public transit in rural areas, despite the fact that it already existed /s
it's not like i don't hate cars, i do. But i really can't see how you're going to convince "rurals" with that argument
good luck to you
We aren't discussing tactics for convincing people of anything. We're discussing facts. And the fact is there's no reason public transit can't work in rural areas as you stated.
i'm not from the U.S.
there's a well established network of rails here and we can say that rail transport is the backbone of this country.
yet people in rural areas still think that cars are essential just to survive ☞ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_protests
i may think otherwise, i can live without a car, but it's condescending to tell them "there's no reason public transit can't work in rural areas"
even those who commute by bike+train have cars because "public transit" isn't a solution to all their needs.
It may or may not be "condescending" to tell people they're wrong, but it doesn't make them right or change the basic facts.
I'd recommend checking out a different community since you seem to be very invested in making excuses for pro car people, and less interested in challenging people's assumptions about cars.
no, thank you. i'm fine here
your condescension continues 👍
That's an opinion, you try living 10 miles out of town a mile up a private road when you are out of your prime. Tell is how a car is unreasonable, these are your personal opinions and this community specifically echos them. I can understand more public transport but it's not a one size fits all, explain to me how a diesel bus that gets 3.5-6.5 mpg going 10 miles out of town for 3-6 people is more eco friendly then several people having much more fuel efficiency cars.
A bus isn't going to drive a mile up everyone's private roads in the middle of nowhere, public transport is not a one size fits all, it can get people in town to other parts or other towns but it can't replace cars for everyone
Honestly? Buses would be a good short-term solution that can be implemented immediately with the right political will, and enough force.
Everything we do to make car travel worse (except for ambulances and disabled folks) is a win