In a Car-Culture Clash, It’s the Los Angeles Police vs. Pedestrians(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
In a Car-Culture Clash, It’s the Los Angeles Police vs. Pedestrians
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/us/in-a-car-culture-clash-its-los-angeles-police-vs-pedestrians.html?hp&_r=0&pagewanted=all
19 comments
> The hackers and designers that startups want to hire seem to be disproportionately likely to want to travel on foot or by bike
Startups clustered first in the aggressively car-centric suburbs of Silicon Valley and in large part remain there. Even the YC offices are a long slog from Caltrain, on foot through big streets clogged with cars and parking lots. If Mountain View can attract startups why can't LA? I don't even agree with these jaywalking fines but there seem to be at least as many car lovers among my startup friends as my writer pals. (More, actually, when you factor in all the friends who live in NY.)
Startups clustered first in the aggressively car-centric suburbs of Silicon Valley and in large part remain there. Even the YC offices are a long slog from Caltrain, on foot through big streets clogged with cars and parking lots. If Mountain View can attract startups why can't LA? I don't even agree with these jaywalking fines but there seem to be at least as many car lovers among my startup friends as my writer pals. (More, actually, when you factor in all the friends who live in NY.)
Actually Palo Alto is an exceptionally bike-friendly place. I wouldn't live in a town that wasn't. I've never seen a town in the US where a higher percentage of students bicycled to school, or serious cycling was a hobby of more adults. (Bicycling has for years been the cool sport among VCs, for example.)
And as for YC, it's less than a mile from the Caltrain, in weather that is almost always dry and warm, mostly along roads that are pretty empty of cars. A lot of the founders we fund never get cars during the 3 month cycle, because they can get everywhere by bike and Caltrain.
And as for YC, it's less than a mile from the Caltrain, in weather that is almost always dry and warm, mostly along roads that are pretty empty of cars. A lot of the founders we fund never get cars during the 3 month cycle, because they can get everywhere by bike and Caltrain.
Palo Also is comparatively good for its area, but bicycling's modal share among commute options even there is quite low, hovering around 10%. Partly that's because many people who live in Palo Alto work elsewhere, and vice versa. In other cities on the peninsula it doesn't even crack 5%; nearly everyone who lives or works in Santa Clara or Sunnyvale drives, for example (biking's modal share is <2%). Mountain View is somewhere in between, at ~6%.
Those numbers aren't inconsistent with it being possible to bike in those cities, but they suggest that people in practice don't. Here's a map: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/8007583135/
Infrastructurally, it's quite noticeable as well. The Valley doesn't feel like a bike- or pedstrian-friendly place, but like a place criss-crossed by huge roads, giant parking lots, and not only interstates and state freeways, but county expressways, something I've rarely seen elsewhere (apparently the Peninsula opted out of BART and took the money that would've been spent there, to build abominations like the San Tomas and Lawrence expressways, instead). I remember walking from Mountain View Caltrain to the Microsoft campus on La Avenida once for a SuperHappyDevHouse, and it clearly did not seem like a route anyone ever expected a pedestrian to walk on.
Those numbers aren't inconsistent with it being possible to bike in those cities, but they suggest that people in practice don't. Here's a map: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bike/8007583135/
Infrastructurally, it's quite noticeable as well. The Valley doesn't feel like a bike- or pedstrian-friendly place, but like a place criss-crossed by huge roads, giant parking lots, and not only interstates and state freeways, but county expressways, something I've rarely seen elsewhere (apparently the Peninsula opted out of BART and took the money that would've been spent there, to build abominations like the San Tomas and Lawrence expressways, instead). I remember walking from Mountain View Caltrain to the Microsoft campus on La Avenida once for a SuperHappyDevHouse, and it clearly did not seem like a route anyone ever expected a pedestrian to walk on.
YC is great locationwise :) And there are some great startups within a couple blocks of MV Caltrain.
I was just trying to make the point that even in a car-centric place you can have good startups. To an SF worker it seems kinda miraculous that the Valley proper, with its relatively weak mass transit, is still such a startup hub. So I tend to give LA the benefit of the doubt in terms of startups vs transport.
And yes Palo Alto > LA for sure. I wish the whole Valley were a little more like Palo Alto.
I was just trying to make the point that even in a car-centric place you can have good startups. To an SF worker it seems kinda miraculous that the Valley proper, with its relatively weak mass transit, is still such a startup hub. So I tend to give LA the benefit of the doubt in terms of startups vs transport.
And yes Palo Alto > LA for sure. I wish the whole Valley were a little more like Palo Alto.
Mountain View is pretty bike-friendly, and even won some sort of award for being so. (According to some sign I saw while biking in Mountain View.)
It's no Portland, but drivers seem pretty attentive. Of course, I bet the average Mountain View startup founder owns a car.
It's no Portland, but drivers seem pretty attentive. Of course, I bet the average Mountain View startup founder owns a car.
I've been living in LA for a while now and one thing I've noticed is that the area commonly referred to as "LA" is huge and that things can vary considerably from one part of town to another.
The real "startup" hub in the Los Angeles area seems to be in Santa Monica, far from downtown LA, where the crackdown in the article seems to be taking place, and outside the jurisdiction of LAPD. It's home of many startups, near UCLA and home of at least one incubator (Mucker Lab).
I've worked in Santa Monica during my time here and it's surprisingly bike and pedestrian friendly (as are most of the beach cities). I don't currently work at a startup, but the my current employer has indoor bike rakes that are well used as did my previous (startup) employer. Startups chose this part of town over downtown LA, or other parts of town for many reasons, in spite of high rents for office space. They do so for many reasons, but I have a feeling that one is the ability for folks to get to work in a variety of ways, including on foot or by bike.
The real "startup" hub in the Los Angeles area seems to be in Santa Monica, far from downtown LA, where the crackdown in the article seems to be taking place, and outside the jurisdiction of LAPD. It's home of many startups, near UCLA and home of at least one incubator (Mucker Lab).
I've worked in Santa Monica during my time here and it's surprisingly bike and pedestrian friendly (as are most of the beach cities). I don't currently work at a startup, but the my current employer has indoor bike rakes that are well used as did my previous (startup) employer. Startups chose this part of town over downtown LA, or other parts of town for many reasons, in spite of high rents for office space. They do so for many reasons, but I have a feeling that one is the ability for folks to get to work in a variety of ways, including on foot or by bike.
The new Expo rail also helps SM/Silicon Beach be much more of the hub. The SM deal included a bike path that connects to existing SM bike paths, taking you all the way to the beach. From there, you can very safely bike all the way to Manhattan Beach and beyond (the path runs along the beach without any cars). Your only point of exposure to cars is transitioning from Marina del Rey to Playa del Rey.
All-in-all, the beach cities are awesome, but costs easily compete with the best of SF, especially if you like the newer, more modern stuff closer to the beach...
All-in-all, the beach cities are awesome, but costs easily compete with the best of SF, especially if you like the newer, more modern stuff closer to the beach...
Los Angeles consists of a lot of cities within cities. The downtown core is actually remarkably accomodating for pedestrians, train riders, and bike riders with the exception of this stupid and wrongheaded new enforcement policy. It's funny that Eric Garcetti and many other LA boosters keep trying to create the "Silicon Beach" when downtown, Koreatown, and Culver City all have far superior environments for startups when you consider cost of living, cost of office space, public transit and walkability. Santa Monica, Manhattan Beach, El Segundo and Venice are horrible in comparison.
Weather, weather, weather. The "silicon beach" is 10 to 15 degrees cooler than downtown on a summer day with noticeably less smog. For many the west side is where its at,
I agree weather is an important factor. I live on the west side, about a mile from the beach, and commute to Culver city by bicycle. I'm lucky there is a bike path that accommodates me in the least bike accommodating city.
To the previous commenter's point: Culver City has it all in terms of food, rental space, and access to the (albeit lacking) LA Metro.
To the previous commenter's point: Culver City has it all in terms of food, rental space, and access to the (albeit lacking) LA Metro.
Yeah, the Expo Line puts Culver City in serious competition now too. That would be my top pick for anyone looking to start a company in the LA area. Koreatown could be interesting for slightly more adventurous people. Downtown's rents have skyrocketed now that it's become a desirable place to live, but office space is still cheap, and living space rents are still a lot cheaper than Santa Monica or Venice.
It can be too cold at times. The (SF) Valley is horrible, Westside a bit chilly... Hollywood to Downtown perfect, best weather in the world (unless you like rain).
> Westside a bit chilly... Hollywood to Downtown perfect, best weather in the world
Do you exercise outdoors? Would you seriously prefer to run at Griffith Park rather than on The Strand?
When I lived in LA, everyone who preferred the weather east of the 405 didn't exercise outdoors (if at all). They would ask, "Isn't the weather beautiful today?" after walking for less than 30 seconds from their air conditioned car to our air conditioned office.
(I've long since moved from LA to the Pacific Northwest, where I can work up a comfortable sweat hiking Mount Rainier.)
Do you exercise outdoors? Would you seriously prefer to run at Griffith Park rather than on The Strand?
When I lived in LA, everyone who preferred the weather east of the 405 didn't exercise outdoors (if at all). They would ask, "Isn't the weather beautiful today?" after walking for less than 30 seconds from their air conditioned car to our air conditioned office.
(I've long since moved from LA to the Pacific Northwest, where I can work up a comfortable sweat hiking Mount Rainier.)
I ride my bike up to the Observatory a few times a week.
There is a stretch from Aug to Sept or so where I need to be done by 11am (or start late afternoon). Every year is a bit different though... sometimes there is not much of a winter, sometimes the summer is mild, sometimes almost hellish... luck of the draw I guess.
In any case I can usually count on about 3/4 of the year being sunny, 80F, and low humidity. I've traveled but have not seen better.
There is a stretch from Aug to Sept or so where I need to be done by 11am (or start late afternoon). Every year is a bit different though... sometimes there is not much of a winter, sometimes the summer is mild, sometimes almost hellish... luck of the draw I guess.
In any case I can usually count on about 3/4 of the year being sunny, 80F, and low humidity. I've traveled but have not seen better.
That's one thing I've noticed as well. There's certainly cheaper office space and cheaper living in other parts of LA, but somehow cost of living seems to have an inverse relationship with startups, with the biggest hubs being Silicon Valley/SF, NYC, and Boston.
Should every city gravitate towards catering to startup culture? Will we witness large major metro areas trying to move swiftly with regards to policy decisions, attempting to outdo each other? Interesting times.
This is why Santa Monica and Venice are much closer to the startup center of gravity than Los Angeles proper is. My parents have been visiting here (Santa Monica) for Christmas and it has been very easy to do everything without having a car. The neighborhoods along the coast are very walkable, and when you infrequently need to change locales there's always Über. I only have a motorcycle to commute a few miles to Century City, but on the weekends it stays parked and pedestrian transport reigns. Googlers are even luckier with their Venice office, it's smack dab in the middle of a thriving pedestrian neighborhood.
This map of LA startups does indeed show where the center of gravity lies:
http://represent.la/
http://represent.la/
Fascinating, thanks!
We (Factual) recently moved offices but stayed in Century City because we like the locale so much. But our employees are distributed all around LA and it is a relatively central location for them. Most drive but several are switching to (dangerous) bicycling and taking the bus.
We (Factual) recently moved offices but stayed in Century City because we like the locale so much. But our employees are distributed all around LA and it is a relatively central location for them. Most drive but several are switching to (dangerous) bicycling and taking the bus.
While I totally agree many hackers and designers want to bike, walk, and mass transit,
I've visited LA recently (I stayed a week to see if I might live there) and I can tell you that many of those types actually live and work in Santa Monica which is quite bike and ped friendly.
I have a friend who is working on a startup there ( http://www.homehero.org/ ) out of one of the coworking spaces. He bikes to work.
I've visited LA recently (I stayed a week to see if I might live there) and I can tell you that many of those types actually live and work in Santa Monica which is quite bike and ped friendly.
I have a friend who is working on a startup there ( http://www.homehero.org/ ) out of one of the coworking spaces. He bikes to work.
Do you guess that's also the driver behind startups gravitating more lately towards walk/transit-oriented SF and Oakland, and away from the car-centric Valley? Or is something else at work there?
[deleted]
It's remarkable how different cities have such radically different approaches and attitudes toward pedestrians. More so how drivers - on the whole - have this almost ESP-like ability to share a common like or dislike.
One of the most (pleasantly) jarring things I noticed about my move from NYC to SF is how totally dominant pedestrians are in SF, how totally deferential drivers are to pedestrians, and frankly how polite drivers are to each other. SF is filled with 4-way stop signs, and there's a very efficient (unspoken) system of coordinating who goes when (based on arrival time at the stop sign). If you dare break the system, you get yelled (honked) at mercilessly.
As a pedestrian in SF, I sometimes have to insist that cars go ahead (I'm rarely in a rush when I'm walking, and I know how frustrating it can be as a driver to wait for a slow person to meander across the street). You need to do nothing more than approach a crosswalk and every car in every direction will stop and wait for you to cross -- people even insist that you cross and will stop their cars while in mid-turn. I find that sometimes ill have to actually walk away from the curb if I'm waiting for someone or not actually crossing yet, otherwise I impede traffic. It's pretty cool.
I spent a weekend in New Orleans recently, and one of the first things I noticed was the complete lack of that pedestrian deference. Step in the street at a crosswalk and cars will rush to get through before you start crossing.
I guess that's what they mean when they say "Live in Northern California, but leave before you get soft" ;)
One of the most (pleasantly) jarring things I noticed about my move from NYC to SF is how totally dominant pedestrians are in SF, how totally deferential drivers are to pedestrians, and frankly how polite drivers are to each other. SF is filled with 4-way stop signs, and there's a very efficient (unspoken) system of coordinating who goes when (based on arrival time at the stop sign). If you dare break the system, you get yelled (honked) at mercilessly.
As a pedestrian in SF, I sometimes have to insist that cars go ahead (I'm rarely in a rush when I'm walking, and I know how frustrating it can be as a driver to wait for a slow person to meander across the street). You need to do nothing more than approach a crosswalk and every car in every direction will stop and wait for you to cross -- people even insist that you cross and will stop their cars while in mid-turn. I find that sometimes ill have to actually walk away from the curb if I'm waiting for someone or not actually crossing yet, otherwise I impede traffic. It's pretty cool.
I spent a weekend in New Orleans recently, and one of the first things I noticed was the complete lack of that pedestrian deference. Step in the street at a crosswalk and cars will rush to get through before you start crossing.
I guess that's what they mean when they say "Live in Northern California, but leave before you get soft" ;)
The way they deal with 4-way stop signs isn't "unspoken," it's the frigging law [1]. That law is exactly the same as every other state. This stuff is covered day one of driver's ed. If you "break the system," you're breaking the law and deserve a ticket, not just honking.
Moreover, the same deference can also be seen in Boston, which is a very walkable city. Although jaywalking is very common in Boston. New Orleans is a completely different city--only a small section of it has significant pedestrian traffic, and that section is often closed off to cars, anyway.
[1] http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&gr...
Moreover, the same deference can also be seen in Boston, which is a very walkable city. Although jaywalking is very common in Boston. New Orleans is a completely different city--only a small section of it has significant pedestrian traffic, and that section is often closed off to cars, anyway.
[1] http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&gr...
In Ohio, the law at a four-way stop is: one car, rotating clockwise around the intersection. NOT whoever got there first.
Makes you wonder, that your parent didn't know it is the law. Makes you wonder how many rules of the road are not known to be law, and mostly just followed out of social enforcement?
> a very efficient (unspoken) system of coordinating who goes when
> approach a crosswalk and every car in every direction will stop and wait for you to cross
I confess to being baffled by these quotes: Are these not the law?
In every province in which I've lived, the rules for stop signs are simple: First in, first out. In case of multiple simultaneous arrivals, vehicle on the right has right of way. Only pathological case is a multi-road intersection with perfectly equal spacing between roads, e.g., four-way intersection of two perpendicular roads - the drivers have to sort something out, but it's such a rare case it's not worth solving.
That regulation works just as well for large intersections when then the lights are out: As you arrive, take note of who else is already there - you have right of way when they are all gone, everyone else has to wait for you.
That regulation is observed in Ontario, NB, NS, PEI, and, to a lesser or greater extent, Quebec (highway regs are provincial, but we're pretty consistent on many sensible points).
Likewise, pedestrians have absolute right of way wherever they are permitted to be. That is less observed, especially in bigger cities in Ontario and especially in Quebec, but is strictly observed in the Maritimes: Popup from between parked cars in Wolfville - or even Saint John, on many streets - and traffic halts for you.
I confess to being baffled by these quotes: Are these not the law?
In every province in which I've lived, the rules for stop signs are simple: First in, first out. In case of multiple simultaneous arrivals, vehicle on the right has right of way. Only pathological case is a multi-road intersection with perfectly equal spacing between roads, e.g., four-way intersection of two perpendicular roads - the drivers have to sort something out, but it's such a rare case it's not worth solving.
That regulation works just as well for large intersections when then the lights are out: As you arrive, take note of who else is already there - you have right of way when they are all gone, everyone else has to wait for you.
That regulation is observed in Ontario, NB, NS, PEI, and, to a lesser or greater extent, Quebec (highway regs are provincial, but we're pretty consistent on many sensible points).
Likewise, pedestrians have absolute right of way wherever they are permitted to be. That is less observed, especially in bigger cities in Ontario and especially in Quebec, but is strictly observed in the Maritimes: Popup from between parked cars in Wolfville - or even Saint John, on many streets - and traffic halts for you.
FIFO is typically perceived to be the case, but technically the law in many locales actually states that each driver yield to the right. The distance at which a car is to be included as “at” the intersection is a little fuzzy, so in practice it often looks like FIFO.
Of the three states I've lived in (IN, NC, WA) the law has been FIFO. The tie-breaker for two cars arriving at the intersection (defined as coming to a complete stop) at the same time is "yield to the right" as you note. Are you sure you're not confusing the latter with the general law? Laws seldom have any piece that is "a little fuzzy" and are generally well defined.
No two vehicles ever stop “at the same time” when you get down to it. There's always an offset, and the fuzziness I'm speaking of is how much slop is included to trigger simultaneity. Generally, it's little enough that it gives the appearance of FIFO in practice, but the law specifies positional yielding. I'm speaking in reference to OH and OR law, here. The laws don't say “whomever stopped first gets right of way.” They say something to the effect of, “You must stop at a stop sign. If there is another car to your right at the intersection, you must yield to it.” The relevant phrasing from the Oregon revised statutes is “After stopping, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when the driver is moving across or within the intersection.”[1] It's actually quite fuzzy. Many laws are, which is part of why we rely on human juries and judges to make sensible decisions about conflicts.
1. ORS 811.260(15) http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.260
1. ORS 811.260(15) http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/811.260
The Oregon law in the link is practically useless for making a determination pertaining to four-way stops (it looks like it might be referring to two-way stops with cross traffic). Whatever, maybe you quoted the wrong statute, I thought to myself, or maybe my not-a-lawyer brain just can't parse it. Let's go to the OR drivers manual!
"At any intersection with stop signs in all four directions, it is common courtesy to allow the driver who stops first to go first."
Good Gawd, "common courtesy"?! What's wrong with your lawmakers down there?
So I stand corrected. Apparently not every state has this clearly defined.
(As an example of a state that does clearly define it, first thing I find on Google is Michigan, which matches exactly what I described: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/traffic_talk_wha...)
"At any intersection with stop signs in all four directions, it is common courtesy to allow the driver who stops first to go first."
Good Gawd, "common courtesy"?! What's wrong with your lawmakers down there?
So I stand corrected. Apparently not every state has this clearly defined.
(As an example of a state that does clearly define it, first thing I find on Google is Michigan, which matches exactly what I described: http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/traffic_talk_wha...)
“What's wrong with your lawmakers down there?”
We also have a significant number of completely uncontrolled intersections in dense, urban neighborhoods. No lights, no signs, nothing other than “please drive slowly with caution.” So it's not just the legislators who are a little lax.
We also have a significant number of completely uncontrolled intersections in dense, urban neighborhoods. No lights, no signs, nothing other than “please drive slowly with caution.” So it's not just the legislators who are a little lax.
This thread is making me seriously concerned. Do this many people just not know basic traffic laws?
When's the last time you took a driving test of any sort (assuming you live in the US)? I've lived in WA for 13 years. I took the "written" (scare quotes because it was computerized) test to get my WA license when I moved here, and took the eye "exam" (scare quotes because how bad would your eyes have to be to fail?). In the 13 years since, I've had my eyes tested exactly once at the DMV. No written tests since, so I could forget or misremember a lot in those 13 years.
The last time anyone has tested my abilities behind the wheel can be measured in decades. It's a wonder we're not plowing into each other more often.
The last time anyone has tested my abilities behind the wheel can be measured in decades. It's a wonder we're not plowing into each other more often.
Based on observations driving around my city for the last 10 years or so... yes. Occasionally you'll even run into people who don't bother stopping at stop signs if they're turning, and god help you if the light is out. You'll sometimes also run into people who think that so long as they've stopped at the sign and at least one other person has gone then they have right of way no matter if there were others already waiting when they got there.
Driving around in SF makes me think not many people know about the law. For most people it seems to be either "I just stopped, so I go next" or "he got there before me, but he's turning, so he has to wait".
I got stopped for jaywalking in Munich, Germany. It was a single lane street, and not a very wide one. Everyone else was waiting at the light. The cop ran my passport then let me go after a few minutes.
> It's remarkable how different cities have such radically different approaches and attitudes toward pedestrians.
I think there's a blog article from Raymond Chen where he notes how the LA concert hall building is totally designed for people arriving from the underground parking lot, and claims that the minimum number of parking slots required for such a building by regulations in LA are higher than the maximum permitted by regulations in NYC...
I think there's a blog article from Raymond Chen where he notes how the LA concert hall building is totally designed for people arriving from the underground parking lot, and claims that the minimum number of parking slots required for such a building by regulations in LA are higher than the maximum permitted by regulations in NYC...
In some of the most popular squares / blocks there shouldn't even be car traffic during popular hours. It makes no sense to reserve 80% of the commons 60% of the time for hugely inefficient users of the space.
Take Times Square, why should thousands of pedestrians have to wait extra time to cross, or even just have less breathing room to stand around, so that cars with one to four people in them can have a more direct route to wherever they are going? Let them go around.
Take Times Square, why should thousands of pedestrians have to wait extra time to cross, or even just have less breathing room to stand around, so that cars with one to four people in them can have a more direct route to wherever they are going? Let them go around.
This is the case in some parts of Hong Kong, and it works beautifully — it's actually part of an active campaign on the part of the HK government to increase HK's pedestrian accessibility[1]. Interestingly, even here in one of the most densely-packed cities on earth where 95% of the population uses public transportation on a daily basis, pedestrians are only now being thought of as more than second-class citizens.
1. http://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/pedestrianisa...
1. http://www.td.gov.hk/en/transport_in_hong_kong/pedestrianisa...
Not sure if this really paints the most accurate picture. For one, LA has plenty of unmarked crosswalks that are completely legal to cross. When I worked in Downtown LA I never had a problem with this.
Secondly the LAPD regularly does the reverse of this crackdown and has plain cloths officers cross said crosswalks in order to catch motorists who aren't paying attention/don't care.
I live in Hollywood and every few months I see a jay walking/unmarked crosswalk related accident. When you have distracted motorists in a busy area it's going to happen. When it gets really busy the LAPD cracks down on both sides and erects barriers to keep people on the sidewalk. Seems to work well here but probably is too manpower intensive for downtown.
Secondly the LAPD regularly does the reverse of this crackdown and has plain cloths officers cross said crosswalks in order to catch motorists who aren't paying attention/don't care.
I live in Hollywood and every few months I see a jay walking/unmarked crosswalk related accident. When you have distracted motorists in a busy area it's going to happen. When it gets really busy the LAPD cracks down on both sides and erects barriers to keep people on the sidewalk. Seems to work well here but probably is too manpower intensive for downtown.
We need to desperately change perceptions for traffic. Cars are the recurring factor in all crashes, and they can't be even near pedestrians. If that means they can't clog up the city center, then thats what we have to do.
Just look at this statistic from NY for 2012: http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/dmv1.j...
135 pedestrians killed. These are not people that suddenly collapsed and died, they died from intersections in the space-time continuum with cars. And nobody is being charged for these crashes, if you are not drunk or flee the scene, you can kill people with impunity (jumping the curb included).
I highly recommend reading through http://www.streetsblog.org for a few pages. Or try this article, it's a good summary of all that is wrong:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/nyregion/traffic-agent-fat...
Just look at this statistic from NY for 2012: http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/dmv1.j...
135 pedestrians killed. These are not people that suddenly collapsed and died, they died from intersections in the space-time continuum with cars. And nobody is being charged for these crashes, if you are not drunk or flee the scene, you can kill people with impunity (jumping the curb included).
I highly recommend reading through http://www.streetsblog.org for a few pages. Or try this article, it's a good summary of all that is wrong:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/nyregion/traffic-agent-fat...
Would love to see the NYPD do this. People make absolutely bone-headed decisions as to when and where to cross the street and get killed every year.
My favorite is when people block traffic to cross one way, then the light changes, and they do the same thing to cross the other way. If they had just crossed the two streets in the opposite order, they would have done both crossings with the right of way. Stupid, stupid idiots.
I also enjoy it when people jump out from between parked cars right into the bike lane. It must be nice to have a destination that would be out of the way if you went to the fucking corner to cross the street.
My favorite is when people block traffic to cross one way, then the light changes, and they do the same thing to cross the other way. If they had just crossed the two streets in the opposite order, they would have done both crossings with the right of way. Stupid, stupid idiots.
I also enjoy it when people jump out from between parked cars right into the bike lane. It must be nice to have a destination that would be out of the way if you went to the fucking corner to cross the street.
I should also point out that I'd like to see this, after we increase car ticketing a thousandfold. Every day, I see cars running red lights, people driving 50 in a 20 zone, cars illegally triple-parked, completely blocking ambulances, and so on. The reason so many people die in traffic in New York is because the NYPD does not enforce any traffic laws, and the laws have no bite anyway.
Did you know that if you don't have a driver's license and you kill a little kid on the way to school, the maximum penalty is a $500 fine and 30 days in jail [1]? If you ever want to murder anyone, the message is clear: do it in New York, with your car.
[1] http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/12/20/unlicensed-truck-drive...
Did you know that if you don't have a driver's license and you kill a little kid on the way to school, the maximum penalty is a $500 fine and 30 days in jail [1]? If you ever want to murder anyone, the message is clear: do it in New York, with your car.
[1] http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/12/20/unlicensed-truck-drive...
I would love to see traffic enforcement increase - as Lon as it is fairly and evenly distributed and not tied to illegal substance possession enforcement.
NWA said it best: "Fuck the police."
But look at the date... End-of-the-month quota-filling dragnet likely.
But look at the date... End-of-the-month quota-filling dragnet likely.
No, it's worse than that, far worse. In hard times a city with a failing budget does many things to generate revenue. One of the easiest sources of revenue for a city is a series of laws that imply fines on people for actions that at the time is considered normal behavior. Often the reason given is for "public safety" or for "public goodwill" or other similar notions.
New taxes is popular too, but if you live in a city that has legal issues with creating new taxes they suddenly institute new "fees".
As more cities drown in their budgets you can expect more of this behavior from some cities. Not all of them will go down this road, but many will.
You can expect, and we've already seen much of this, new ideas of generating revenue such as fines, fees, and/or taxes. All at the expense of the people that these revenues are supposed to somehow help.
New taxes is popular too, but if you live in a city that has legal issues with creating new taxes they suddenly institute new "fees".
As more cities drown in their budgets you can expect more of this behavior from some cities. Not all of them will go down this road, but many will.
You can expect, and we've already seen much of this, new ideas of generating revenue such as fines, fees, and/or taxes. All at the expense of the people that these revenues are supposed to somehow help.
This the problem when you let local government have to many powers and set their own laws.
Not just local, but all governments. All governments over time build themselves up to a point that it can no longer be supported by society, nor itself, so that it eventually collapses. Then the people pick up the pieces, vow to never let that happen again for the sake of future generations, and then they go about doing it all over again.
You're getting downvoted for the first line, but the second line is the most insightful comment so far.
I think the framing of this is a little off—from what I understand from friends living in LA, ridiculous ticketing is endemic, for minor traffic infractions to jaywalking. Their perception is that large swaths of the police force are basically being repurposed as tax collectors.
It makes sense, it generates a ton of revenue and isn't subject to many of the traditional political procedures. I'd be curious if any LA locals agree or disagree with that assessment?
It makes sense, it generates a ton of revenue and isn't subject to many of the traditional political procedures. I'd be curious if any LA locals agree or disagree with that assessment?
I'm an LA local, and from my own anecdotal experiences and those of my friends, I partially agree with your assessment.
There was a a period about 8 years ago when the LAPD and CHP waged an aggressive campaign against automobile drivers that failed to yield the right of way to pedestrians (including jaywalkers). Going after pedestrians (that are actually using crossswalks, but are just entering them after the don't walk countdown starts), seems like a shift in policy against pedestrians. The greater threat by far to life and well-being for citizens here are drivers that don't yield to pedestrians.
Of course, pursuing that sort of policy would be to the benefit of the majority of Los Angelusians, and the LAPD's general purpose is not to do anything of the kind.
There was a a period about 8 years ago when the LAPD and CHP waged an aggressive campaign against automobile drivers that failed to yield the right of way to pedestrians (including jaywalkers). Going after pedestrians (that are actually using crossswalks, but are just entering them after the don't walk countdown starts), seems like a shift in policy against pedestrians. The greater threat by far to life and well-being for citizens here are drivers that don't yield to pedestrians.
Of course, pursuing that sort of policy would be to the benefit of the majority of Los Angelusians, and the LAPD's general purpose is not to do anything of the kind.
No, this is not at all my experience in Los Angeles, and certainly not with LAPD.
I've gotten tickets here, but one was on the freeway from CHP, and the other was in Burbank (which is a different city and police department). In Burbank the officer was explicitly waiting for someone to do what I did, which kind of annoyed me.
But in Los Angeles itself, LAPD has left me completely alone. I joke that unless you're actively stabbing someone in front of them, they have better things to do.
Parking is another matter. There's a parking enforcement department, and they are quite aggressive, 24 hours a day.
I've gotten tickets here, but one was on the freeway from CHP, and the other was in Burbank (which is a different city and police department). In Burbank the officer was explicitly waiting for someone to do what I did, which kind of annoyed me.
But in Los Angeles itself, LAPD has left me completely alone. I joke that unless you're actively stabbing someone in front of them, they have better things to do.
Parking is another matter. There's a parking enforcement department, and they are quite aggressive, 24 hours a day.
For those of us not prone to drug sales, extortion, murder, etc... traffic and parking are our only interaction with local PD. So in most cases it sounds like you are actually in agreement despite the comment above.
Most of us have very little interaction with LAPD, since they maintain low numbers of officers for a city its size. But when it comes from extracting $$$ from citizens they are a well-oiled machine. You can expect a parking ticket within 15 minutes anywhere in the city. Santa Monica (a different city) is even more aggressive.
Most of us have very little interaction with LAPD, since they maintain low numbers of officers for a city its size. But when it comes from extracting $$$ from citizens they are a well-oiled machine. You can expect a parking ticket within 15 minutes anywhere in the city. Santa Monica (a different city) is even more aggressive.
I'm saying I've never gotten a traffic ticket from LAPD. In my experience traffic enforcement is pretty lax in Los Angeles.
Adam Carolla has a segment on his podcast he calls "chicken-shit tickets" where he complains about this.
Reminds me of the elderly UK historian who managed to get himself locked up for jaywalking in Atlanta.
"First, I learnt that the Atlanta police are barbaric, brutal, and out of control. The violence I experienced was the worst of my sheltered life. Muggers who attacked me once near my home in Oxford were considerably more gentle with me than the Atlanta cops."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/felipe-fern...
"First, I learnt that the Atlanta police are barbaric, brutal, and out of control. The violence I experienced was the worst of my sheltered life. Muggers who attacked me once near my home in Oxford were considerably more gentle with me than the Atlanta cops."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/felipe-fern...
As a Brit living in London the whole idea of 'jaywalking' is hilarious. It's totally ridiculous to force pedestrians to always use lights & pelican crossings. Assuming everyone has a bit of common sense (don't walk in front of a moving car) I can think of absolutely no reason why these ridiculous laws even exist. A huge number of hours are saved in London every day by everyone not having to wait for a green man.
And a $197 fine?! WTF? Glad I'm not living in LA, I could rack up thousands of dollars in a few hours if walking as one does in London.
And a $197 fine?! WTF? Glad I'm not living in LA, I could rack up thousands of dollars in a few hours if walking as one does in London.
> Assuming everyone has a bit of common sense (don't walk in front of a moving car)
And therein lies the problem. There is a subset of American pedestrians who, because the law says they have the right of way, believe that the laws of physics also do not apply to them either. I have personally witnessed, too many times to count, a pedestrian approaching a crosswalk across a busy, four lane road, who continues, fast paced, without slowing the slightest, towards, into, and across, the crosswalk, without so much as even a glance left or right to check where the oncoming traffic happens to be. I.e., they just step out in front of cars (4 lanes worth) moving 35MPH, with no regard for how much distance there is between a cars hood and their spot in the crosswalk.
The only thing that saves them from getting killed is the random positioning of cars such that they don't actually step in front of a car with only 20 feet left before impact, and the fact that the drivers with 100 feet of space left nearly skid to a stop because of the fool that forget what his/her mother taught them: "Always look both ways before crossing the street".
Sadly, this total lack of common sense seems to infest about 20% of the pedestrian population, and is a major factor contributing to the accident rate. Because quite simply, if you are not in front of a moving car, you can't possibly be hit.
And therein lies the problem. There is a subset of American pedestrians who, because the law says they have the right of way, believe that the laws of physics also do not apply to them either. I have personally witnessed, too many times to count, a pedestrian approaching a crosswalk across a busy, four lane road, who continues, fast paced, without slowing the slightest, towards, into, and across, the crosswalk, without so much as even a glance left or right to check where the oncoming traffic happens to be. I.e., they just step out in front of cars (4 lanes worth) moving 35MPH, with no regard for how much distance there is between a cars hood and their spot in the crosswalk.
The only thing that saves them from getting killed is the random positioning of cars such that they don't actually step in front of a car with only 20 feet left before impact, and the fact that the drivers with 100 feet of space left nearly skid to a stop because of the fool that forget what his/her mother taught them: "Always look both ways before crossing the street".
Sadly, this total lack of common sense seems to infest about 20% of the pedestrian population, and is a major factor contributing to the accident rate. Because quite simply, if you are not in front of a moving car, you can't possibly be hit.
This is very rare in the UK, everyone's pretty good at looking left & right (although many will run/jog rather than wait). I guess this is more an education problem. To be frank if you're stupid enough not to look then you deserve to be hit (of course that attitude won't work in reality as often the driver/car will be at fault by default - certainly in the UK).
Perhaps the best approach would be to not punish 'safe' jaywalking but to give out harsh tickets for those that cause cars to slam the brakes/similar.
Perhaps the best approach would be to not punish 'safe' jaywalking but to give out harsh tickets for those that cause cars to slam the brakes/similar.
> Perhaps the best approach would be to not punish 'safe' jaywalking but to give out harsh tickets for those that cause cars to slam the brakes/similar.
Yes, this would be best, but sadly like so many root causes of problems, it will likely not get addressed.
Yes, this would be best, but sadly like so many root causes of problems, it will likely not get addressed.
There were mass protests on Western Avenue in London when the first footbridge was built over a road, forcing pedestrians off the roads. The car still won. http://www.flickr.com/photos/26245280@N00/256217251/in/photo...
I think a big, dense city with narrow roads is a different case. Cars are mostly slow moving in that case. LA has wide boulevards with cars sometimes moving at high speed right next to peds... crossing becomes more dangerous.
Yes we dont have jaywalking laws in the UK and the world hasn't ended - maybe the LA cops need to concentrate on more serious crimes or maybe there are to many cops?
Some of the details are a bit sketchy, buy $197 for jaywalking really caught my eye. Got a parking ticket a couple if months back... $128. Seems like these more than doubled in last few years. Inflation anyone?
He crossed a red light, that seems fair to me( Europe has similar "prices" ). A car doing that would get at least 2x times that plus points depending on the country.
No, he was crossing with the green light, but started after the pedestrian signal started flashing red. Provided he still got through on the green, I don't think this should even be illegal!
The fine for a car going through a red light is only ~$500 in California.
The fine for a car going through a red light is only ~$500 in California.
Flashing don't walk is there to signal new pedestrians to not start walking and let the existing ones to finish the crossing.
http://www.walkinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=16
http://www.walkinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=16
I was recently in downtown LA for a convention and there was at least one pedestrian signal that had a white walk signal that showed for 1-2 seconds. If you had your head turned to the side while waiting for the walk signal, you would likely miss it before getting the red flashing "don't walk." LA is the least friendly walking city I've ever seen.
There is often a countdown timer as well, and the article implies that was so in this case. Since the timer has to be set to accommodate the slowest pedestrians, the majority of walkers will in fact be able to safely cross even when commencing after the flashing/countdown has started. A reasonable adult can certainly gauge whether the remaining time is sufficient to complete the crossing.
Note that for autos, the equivalent is the yellow lamp in a stoplight and in that case the rule is that the vehicle must have entered the intersection before the lamp turns red. So LA seems to have standards that are paradoxically more stringent for pedestrians.
Note that for autos, the equivalent is the yellow lamp in a stoplight and in that case the rule is that the vehicle must have entered the intersection before the lamp turns red. So LA seems to have standards that are paradoxically more stringent for pedestrians.
Like others have already pointed out, the light was green and it simply indicated that you shouldn't start crossing because there is a countdown going. The countdown helps you see if you can make it. If there are 2 seconds left and you need to cross 4 lanes, you are not making it. If there are 30 seconds left and you need to cross 2 lanes, and you can walk at a brisk pace, doesn't sound that unsafe to me...
That said, the reason they want to crack down on that is they are treating these as gaps for cars to turn (mostly right), instead of heaving either a separate arrow for turning or changing the pedestrian light behavior to allow for a non-flashing red. Basically, instead of spending money to promote public health, they are "taxing" the public through citations.
There are similar examples of these tactics with cars as well. Remember, LA has a serious budget problem: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/18/local/la-me-ln-posit...
The positive news from that article is that they are "only" expecting to be lose "between $153 million and $242 million"...
That said, the reason they want to crack down on that is they are treating these as gaps for cars to turn (mostly right), instead of heaving either a separate arrow for turning or changing the pedestrian light behavior to allow for a non-flashing red. Basically, instead of spending money to promote public health, they are "taxing" the public through citations.
There are similar examples of these tactics with cars as well. Remember, LA has a serious budget problem: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/18/local/la-me-ln-posit...
The positive news from that article is that they are "only" expecting to be lose "between $153 million and $242 million"...
He was ticketed for starting during the flashing "Don't Walk" signal. That seems more like a yellow light to me. In other words, there's still plenty of time to cross if you're a fast walker. Don't walk too fast though, you might get a speeding ticket.
Flashing green light for cars means stop if you are safely able to( again laws in Europe ).
Not sure for pedestrians but by logic this applies to them as well. Logically a flashing don't walk signal to someone who hasn't started walking over the crossing means Stop. What else could it mean?? Run over the road or cross as fast as possible. Definitely not as that would increase accident probability.
http://www.walkinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=16
Not sure for pedestrians but by logic this applies to them as well. Logically a flashing don't walk signal to someone who hasn't started walking over the crossing means Stop. What else could it mean?? Run over the road or cross as fast as possible. Definitely not as that would increase accident probability.
http://www.walkinginfo.org/faqs/answer.cfm?id=16
When pedestrians have accidents they get a bit flustered and apologise. When cars have accidents people die.
It's not that unreasonable to have a different law for cars than for pedestrians.
It's not that unreasonable to have a different law for cars than for pedestrians.
When pedestrians have accidents they get a bit flustered and apologise.
Ask yourself with what object do fast late crossing pedestrians have the most problems with? ( hint: it's heavy )
Ask yourself with what object do fast late crossing pedestrians have the most problems with? ( hint: it's heavy )
Flashing reds are based entirely off of how long it takes an "average" person to cross. As a relatively tall young adult, I walk much faster than the "average," so I can frequently make it across by walking even if it's been flashing red for a few seconds. Furthermore, the "Don't Walk" sign becoming solid is timed to correspond to the yellow lights appearing for the parallel traffic, so the opposing traffic won't start moving for a few seconds after the "Don't Walk" signs appear.
(Disclaimer: This is based on Raleigh, NC's traffic lights. I don't know what level this is standardized at.)
(Disclaimer: This is based on Raleigh, NC's traffic lights. I don't know what level this is standardized at.)
Unfortunately observing lights will not always provide the correct rules, it's easier to read the rulebook.
http://peds.org/resources/pedestrian_right_of_way/
Start reading at: Pedestrian control signals
Also:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/driver/handbook/secti...
http://www.durham.ca/print.asp?nr=/departments/works/roads/t...
http://peds.org/resources/pedestrian_right_of_way/
Start reading at: Pedestrian control signals
Also:
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/dandv/driver/handbook/secti...
http://www.durham.ca/print.asp?nr=/departments/works/roads/t...
There's often a countdown timer as mentioned in the article. You know exactly how much time you have until it's a solid "Don't Walk". Usually, I will pass several people already in the crosswalk at my normal walking speed.
Europe doesn't have a concept of jay walking so I don't know where you get the idea we have similar prices. Oh, wait, did you mean a specific country in Europe that all have different laws?
Certainly in the UK there is no concept of jay walking and the whole thing seems like a ludicrous idea.
There isn't any fines like that in other European countries either, so what you're basing your views on I don't know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Europe
There isn't any fines like that in other European countries either, so what you're basing your views on I don't know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaywalking#Europe
"People upset that previously unenforced rules find renewed enforcement... news at 11"
I get that a fine of $200 for starting to cross on a flashing "Don't Walk" is a bit excessive. But people should not be surprised by a ticket for jaywalking. They are only surprised because it turns out that "everyone does it" isn't really a good defense. I do it. By myself and with groups also doing it. Never got a ticket. But if I did get a ticket, it would totally be justified.
I get that a fine of $200 for starting to cross on a flashing "Don't Walk" is a bit excessive. But people should not be surprised by a ticket for jaywalking. They are only surprised because it turns out that "everyone does it" isn't really a good defense. I do it. By myself and with groups also doing it. Never got a ticket. But if I did get a ticket, it would totally be justified.
This screams of quota fulfillment.
I'm a card-carrying member of the National Motorists Association so I totally get the idea of maintaining a free-flowing thoroughfare but this seems ridiculous. The law should be amended thusly:
- if (person.isCrossingWithoutSignal) officer.cite(person, fine=$197.00);
+ if (person.isCrossingWithoutSignal && nearbyTraffic.isImpededBy(person)) officer.cite(person, fine=$30.00);I'm not even sure this is news. In 1990, on my first business trip to LA from NYC, my contact there - a transplanted New Yorker, warned me that jay walking wasn't tolerated in LA.
I live in Atlanta and people jay walk, aggressivily every day. I have never seen either anyone get arrested or an accident result from jay walking.
I hope the LAPD move onto something more reasonable.
I hope the LAPD move onto something more reasonable.
I live in the suburbs of Atlanta and it's pretty much all over here. I have a problem with noticing it primarily because I don't bother doing it, I can wait those few extra seconds or minutes to be safe. I think the main reason it's annoying is people often do it knowing cars are coming at full speed, with no real regard for their safety or the safety of others. Jaywalking to me is a privilege when used correctly and I'm all for not fining the hell out of people. It's when they become a douchebag, seemingly trying to win some sort of lawsuit lottery with their arrogance that really rubs me the wrong way. You more often die from an automobile striking you than them slowing down just enough for it to be a "love tap" you can take to the bank anyway.
When I lived in philly, I jay-walked all the time. Now I live in LA, the streets are usually wider and the cars tend to drive faster so I very rarely jay-walk.
Revenue generation masquerading as public safety.
There is a bigger trend here though. As several recent studies have shown, people in their 20s are turning against cars. So a city that favors cars at the expense of pedestrians and bicycles is also one that favors the old at the expense of the young.