You can cross wherever and whenever is safe to do so. If traffic conditions don’t facilitate this, pedestrian crossings provide guaranteed crossing points where pedestrians have right of way.
Basically it means that pedestrians are allowed to cross the road anywhere, anytime, but they still have to yield to car traffic except at pedestrian crossings without a semaphore or at the Walk signal. It's a very common-sense law.
> they still have to yield to car traffic except at pedestrian crossings without a semaphore or at the Walk signal.
This isn't true. Car traffic must yield to pedestrians. Pedestrians don't always have the right of way, but you (hopefully obviously) can't just arbitrarily mow them down.
The only time this would matter is if you hit someone and it went to court. Thus in practice, you have to yield to pedestrians whenever you can reasonably do so. It's actually written into NY law (section 1146: "Due Care").
No, this is a misunderstanding of what right of way means. Drivers are never allowed to intentionally cause accidents, either with other cars or with pedestrians. If you have right of way in an intersection but a car is nevertheless not yielding to you, you are not allowed to plow into them if you can reasonably avoid it. That doesn't mean that you don't actually have right of way, or that you need to stop at every intersection to make sure that someone is not yielding.
The same is true with pedestrians crossing where they have to yield to cars. It's their responsibility to check that no cars are passing before crossing. At a crosswalk, drivers will slow down if they see a pedestrian heading towards the crossing; they don't need to (and won't) at other places. Of course, if they see a pedestrian in the middle of the road, they are not allowed to hit them, just like they're not allowed to hit a car.
You can go to jail if you don't take due care to avoid hitting a pedestrian, or even an animal. The right of way of the person being hit is irrelevant. But sure, if you, pedestrian, cause an accident due to your failure to respect right of way, you have also violated a traffic law, and you could be punished for it.
In practice, in a place like NYC, you're going to have to go to pretty extreme lengths for this to apply. Maybe if you dart into traffic maliciously, and a car swerves to avoid you and hits something? I dunno. It's hard to imagine a scenario.
That law requires them to exercise due care if a pedestrian is already on the road. This doesn't mean in any way that they have to slow down if they think the pedestrian might cross the road, as long as they are not endangering them. Even if the pedestrian is already on the road but far away, say on the first lane while the driver is on the third lane, the driver doesn't need to slow down.
Conversely, when a pedestrian is on a crosswalk and thus has right of way, the car needs to slow down even if the pedestrian is relatively far on a different lane.
> You can go to jail if you don't take due care to avoid hitting a pedestrian, or even an animal.
Please explain how this is different from a car that is blocking your way. Would you not be liable for jail if you intentionally hit a car idling on your lane just because it wasn't allowed to be there?
From the article ”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.”
Did you read the article? Pedestrians can always cross but they then don't have the right of way and have to yield to traffic. Basically everyone can keep doing what they've been doing all along but police can no longer arrest them for it through selective enforcement.
>Did you read the article? Pedestrians can always cross but they then don't have the right of way and have to yield to traffic. Basically everyone can keep doing what they've been doing all along but police can no longer arrest them for it through selective enforcement.
As a lifelong New Yorker, I can tell you that arrest is never an option for any violation of the city's administrative code. Rather it's a fine.
And as you alluded to, black and brown people were the vast majority of those fined under the jaywalking regulation.
As a cis white guy, I didn't even know that jaywalking was 'illegal' in NYC until folks started talking about 'legalizing' it a few years ago.
As I mentioned, I've lived here pretty much all my life and have 'jaywalked' in front of police hundreds if not thousands of times and none have ever even looked at me funny.
So yes, this is a very good thing. Just one very, very small step on the road to 'a more perfect union', IMHO.
Yeah, I guess I used "arrest" in the figurative sense (i.e. stopping and fining), not necessarily for taking someone into police custody. This might be the language barrier, as other replies to your comment also seem to misue the term in that sense.
The alternative is having traffic laws for pedestrians and enforcing them and fining violators so they don't just walk wherever they please with zero consequences.
Why is it they get to disrupt traffic with total impunity and shift all the liability to the vehicles? That makes no sense whatsoever.
