Call me old-fashioned, but isn't it illegal to jaywalk? A minor crime, to be sure, but a crime nonetheless. And for what, to get to your destination more quickly? Really? Breaking the law because it is convenient for you?

Perhaps that sits with many of your readers and commenters, but if you disagree with a law -- change it through elective and judicial action. Breaking the law is anti-social behavior and anti-social behavior is contrary to a functioning society. And society is good.

If jaywalkers were ticketed as frequently as speeders, there would still be jaywalkers (as there still are speeders) but there would be much fewer of them.

jaywalking is as illegal as speeding or rolling through stop signs, but I'm guessing you wouldn't call those "anti-social" behaviors

Actually I would and do. Following the law is following the law. When driving, I stop at stop signs. When walking I wait for the walk sign. What is the rush exactly?

I'll take your word on it, but if you'd read Tom's book, you'd know that most car drivers overestimate their skill at driving. Most people see themselves as above average drivers. How can that be? Plus, the article says most pedestrians were killed while following the law. Jaywalkers aren't the problem. Car drivers are the dangerous variable... except you of course.

I suspect that most jaywalkers similarly overestimate their skill at avoiding traffic.

Sure, but "most pedestrians are killed while following the law". If you had to pick one group that should follow the law 100% perfectly, (cars or pedestrians), the one that would minimize deaths, would be the cars -- because in more than half the pedestrian deaths, the ped was obeying the law.

The safety problem is the cars, and how they are driven. Think about it terms of not hurting other people -- the pedestrians are 100% prudent and responsible, they operate their feet in a way that harms nobody. You cannot say the same for cars, no matter how carefully you drive, you are still in a large hunk of heavy machinery, and as people are fond of saying, "laws of physics". The choice to drive a car is inherently, unavoidably, less responsible than choosing to walk -- you might even call it "anti social".

I do think I am a good pedestrain but probably not as good as I think. However, though there have been a few times where my mind was on other things and "cars came out of nowhere" when I probably just wasn't paying as good attention. Cars are much faster then I am. I am walking slowly they are going fast, some times really fast. Faster then they should. If a car is squealing on a turn, that's scary fast. One time I was walking on a cross walk (no light) a car had stopped to let me pass, so I SHOULD have been safe. A car had stopped. Another car came up behind them and turn and drove through the crosswalk while I was walking through it and again a car had stopped for me. Was it worth it to them? They saved 5 secs and nearly hit me when I had done everything legally.

I do jaywalk sometimes, but then there are no cars. Sometimes they are going faster then I think. So I need to be careful. But most of my 'close calls' have been drivers not me. I am slow they are fast. They should be watching they don't. I watch, but not as well as I should all the time, though I am really careful. If they weren't speeding they would see me sooner.

Also, there is only one cross offical cross walk for a long time, so I usually have to use the 'end of the block crossing. Because its legal to cross at the end of the block. But if I 'm almost there and there are no cars, isn't better for me to just go? Then get to the cross walk when there is a car (it had time to get there) and make them wait.

My personal pedestrian philosophy is whatever is most convenient for the drivers. So I try to make them not have to stop for me. And if that includes Jaywalking so be it. I don't cross when there are cars coming.

I've seen plenty of pedestrians act in an antisocial manner. I've seen pedestrians step right into moving traffic and then curse drivers for not slamming on their brakes and risking being rear-ended. I've seen pedestrians jaywalking kick cars, pound on them with their fist, and scream and yell at drivers. I've been shoved by other pedestrians in a crowded crosswalk when I didn''t move out of their path fast enough. Sorry, pal, there is plenty of antisocial behavior on the part of pedestrians going on.

In fact, once could argue that the attitude that pedestrians are somehow permitted to break the law or do things that are unsafe just because they aren't driving a car is antisocial.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for more people walking, biking, and taking public transportation. But, for some, that's not always an option. In any case, pedestrians need to do their part to make life safer for everyone.

It sounds (to me) like you are saying that attitudes matter more than outcomes, whereas I think I am more interested in who harms whom, and how much. People in cars kills tens of thousands of people each year. How many do those shoving+kicking pedestrians kill? Working from the body count, I'd have to give the antisocial count to cars. It's hard to get much more antisocial than killing other people.

That's exactly the attitude that I would expect someone who steps out into traffic to have. "I am superior to you, therefore you must stop."

How many of those deaths were due to this stupid attitude?

It seems to me that if the goal is saving lives, then one has to look not only at who harms whom, but also at who is best positioned to prevent that harm. "Pedestrians following the law," who by definition are not jaywalking, are already acting reasonably to protect themselves, so it makes sense to focus on drivers to reduce risks to those pedestrians.

The population of pedestrians who break the law, however, increase the risks to themselves over and above the risks faced by law-abiding pedestrians, by their own actions. (I say this as a pedestrian who commutes to work without driving.) Taking steps to discourage jaywalking encourages that subset of pedestrians to reduce these additional risks and thus saves lives among them. Focusing solely on the wrongdoing of drivers has a certain stern purity, to be sure, but it seems to me to be missing a practical opportunity to achieve benefits on more than one front.

"It seems to me that if the goal is saving lives, then one has to look not only at who harms whom, but also at who is best positioned to prevent that harm."

I agree completely. Its much harder for a car to stop quickly than for you not to step in front of a car. Even if a car is only moving at 15 or 20 MPH, it takes many feet to stop. So, when you step into the path of a moving car, you are risking your own. Further, you are the one who has the most power to prevent your own death (i.e. harm). This is true no matter who has the right of way.

Personally, I think that its great that you commute to work without a car. I would do the same if I lived in a place where that is possible. (When I lived in the Boston area, I did.) However, you need to recognize the realities of a moving vehicle. What seems like a slow and deliberate move to step into the street looks like you darted out of nowhere to a driver. Ignoring this reality, vilifying drivers, and having a "holy than thou" attitude isn't going to make anyone any safer.

I think that jaywalking should be strictly enforced in areas and times where its obviously dangerous.

I'm afraid I disagree with you, Mr. Tildrum,

That's like saying that if the goal is to save lives then police should follow the law by not getting hit by bullets... It's true that officers should avoid bullets, but it's the guy with the weapon who is responsible for the damage.

You agree to very high standards of responsibility while you drive. Those same standards should not be imposed on me to walk, because I cannot hurt anything. And if you're unwilling to live by those standards, then you simply need to stop driving - not walking is significantly more daunting, legally, and is paramount to arrest without cause or warrant.