Since they made this change in California last year, I cross where ever when it is safe and convenient. I'm surprised how big of difference it made to the convenience and speed of walking somewhere. No more waiting for 2 different lights just to get to the opposite corner.
I had to look this up. "Safe jaywalking" is legal in California, but if you risk a collision, you can be cited.
----------
VC 21955. (a) Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices or by police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway at any place except in a crosswalk.
(b)
(1) A peace officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, shall not stop a pedestrian for a violation of subdivision (a) unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power.
(2) This subdivision does not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for their safety.
(3) This subdivision does not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within the roadway.
But -- in California -- it remains illegal to do so in sections of roadway that are betwixt two traffic lights, no matter how safe an convenient it is.
(We've got very similarly-worded restrictions here in Ohio, too, FWIW.)
> Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic control signal devices
Does this mean diagonally? What's the distance to "adjacent"? One city block? Two? Does this mean that jaywalking is still practically illegal in most dense cities/downtown areas?
The lack of clarity is pretty frustrating with many of these laws. I understand the practical need for wiggle room, but this almost seems like a trap!
My naive interpretation is that police will still have plenty of opportunity to use jaywalking in the ways that the law was trying to prevent, especially in densely populated areas.
I used to live on a street where crossing it legally meant a one mile trek, so it's appreciated, especially since I was warned once, but I now have no idea if it would be legal or not, since there was a light half mile in either direction.
> An “intersection” is the area embraced within the prolongation of the lateral curb lines, or, if none, then the lateral boundary lines of the roadways, of two highways which join one another at approximately right angles or the area within which vehicles traveling upon different highways joining at any other angle may come in conflict.
My question was specifically about the "adjacent" part of "adjacent intersections". That link explains "intersections". What does it mean when those are "adjacent"?
Aye. I can't find that part spelled out anywhere for CA. (There's probably case law on the topic, but IANAL.)
My lay interpretation is, I think, the same as yours: In order to avoid doing illegal things, one would have to walk a mile to cross the road in your example.
And as a lay jaywalker: I'm absolutely certain that I would never do that; I'd simply cross the road when when it was safe to do so. (I'd also like to hope that I would have the time, money, and opportunity to have a turn in front of a judge for any resulting citation because this kind of result is absolute horseshit.)
As a veteran jaywalker, let me propose that you avoid crossing at junctions, where crossings are usually located, ideally cross at one leg, especially good if it’s a one way street.
Less traffic, fewer inputs/outputs to keep under observations.
Where I live, just about all of the downtown streets are one-ways and it does wonders for getting around both on foot and in an automobile. Though the latter will be more punishing if you don't know the lay of the land, and there will be congestion near on-ramps during rush hour.
In my experience, some types of one-way streets are some of the least trustworthy for crossing on foot because drivers treat them as race courses or interstates with speed limits (and sometimes worse, traffic lights) as barely a suggestion. It's interesting how much excitement as a pedestrian I find at the elimination of one-way streets and replacement with calmer two-way street "diet" patterns. (Street "diets" reduce lanes, add more dedicated turn lanes, smarter medians and parking.)
>waiting for 2 different lights just to get to the opposite corner.
A solution sometimes seen in London is a “Pedestrian Scramble”, where pedestrians are explicitly given full (and even diagonal) access to a junction with all other traffic stopped.
In Seattle, they call these "all walks" or officially, "all way walks." I love them, since I don't feel like I have to watch out for drivers making left turns.
