On my daily commute by car, I often see people crossing in the middle of busy roads. What I find amusing is that after they've crossed the road, they would have walked past a set of traffic lights anyway on their way to their destination where they could have crossed safely.
Why is that? And it doesn't look like they were in a hurry either judging by the speed of their walking.
So you think stopping at the traffic lights means you get there just as fast?
The stand at traffic lights is usually for 1 to 2 mins, or walk down the road 50m and wait there for clear traffic and cross, usually clear because the crossing lights have activated. So, let's say you save 30 to 60 seconds, would that make a big difference to the arrival time? It's like the people doing 70 in a 60 zone because they are 20 mins late for work. It has little influence on your arrival time over a short distance.
I suppose, if you skip the 20+ reds on your 15km walk to work, sure, makes a difference. Walking across the road from the car park to the shops, not so much…
you can miss a bus in 5 seconds, and wait for another 30mins for the next one to come.
@phunkydude: I guess some people are that time poor that their life comes down to living it to within 5 second error margins.
And it doesn't look like they were in a hurry either judging by the speed of their walking.
And I'm pretty sure of all the people OP has seen, not all of them would be 5 seconds away from catching that clockwork bus service.
How do you know what they feel?
I think less than 50% of drivers realise that broken lines from a side street mean give way and a full line means stop and give way, including to pedestrians. I think drivers here have the view that if they've done something for years, it must be legal. There's a wide street intersection near me where cars pass 1 stop sign and three broken give way lines and still look surprised at having to give way. In some cases the drivers drive over a painted island in the median…doesn't mean the lines you avoided don't apply :p
Cool story
Invent that meme yourself? I think you are more thread mall cop than kindergarten.
Obviously not. Relax your sacks (also not invented by me).
In Australia pedestrians are a deranged species. If they get hit, cars get punished with lower speed limits. No punishment for the offender. Let's keep breeding carefree pedestrians.
Maybe you haven't heard of the offense commonly referred to as jaywalking? It's a punishment for the offender.
The maximum punishments is death, followed by serious injury resulting in permanent disability.
Maybe you haven't heard of the offense commonly referred to as jaywalking? It's a punishment for the offender.
There is no such offence as Jaywalking in Australia, it's a term that has been used in increasing frequency by uneducated people. Given your use of the word "offense" and "jaywalking" you must be posting from America.
The actual offence is the following and only applies to crossing the road within 20m of a pedestrian crossing.
234 Crossing a road on or near a crossing for pedestrians
(1) A pedestrian must not cross a road, or part of a road, within 20m of a crossing on the road, except at the crossing or another crossing, unless the pedestrian is—
(a) crossing, or helping another pedestrian to cross, an area of the road between tram tracks and the far left side of the road to get on, or after getting off, a tram or bus; or
(b) crossing to or from a safety zone; or
(c) crossing at an intersection with traffic lights and a pedestrians may cross diagonally sign; or
(d) crossing in a shared zone; or
(e) crossing a road, or a part of a road, from which vehicles are excluded, either permanently or temporarily.
"There is no such offence as Jaywalking in Australia, it's a term that has been used in increasing frequency by uneducated people. Given your use of the word "offense" and "jaywalking" you must be posting from America".
The term has been used over here for years. I suggest that you are the uneducated one.
Here's a newspaper headline from Sydney.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-pedestrians-stroll-straight…
The term has been used over here for years. I suggest that you are the uneducated one.
Are you having trouble understanding a simple clear statement of fact?
There is no offence in Australia called jaywalking, this is a fact. I even posted the relevant law with the wording but you still don't understand.
Jaywalking is also a different offence that applies to whole roads and not the small areas that our laws cover.
Just because the term has been used does not mean it's correct.
Here's a newspaper headline from Sydney.
Great, educate yourself on our traffic laws from a stupid journalist. That'll be a great defence in court…. I heard it was legal on Facebook, newspaper or guy on a bus.
Every year hundreds of people are killed crossing at traffic lights. So I avoid becoming this statistic by not crossing at traffic lights. Solved!!! Still alive!!
Same as every year hundreds of people are killed operating power tools while eating. I no longer operate power tools!!
Can you provide a link to this unbelievable statistic?
I do this on a daily basis. I base my decision on crossing a road as to whether there is oncoming traffic or not, regardless of an arbitrarily coloured flashing light that may or may not be in the vicinity. People run red lights on a daily basis so it is vastly safer to cross any part of the road with no oncoming traffic than cross like a sheep at the traffic lights with your head down texting/facebooking.
so it is vastly safer to cross any part of the road with no oncoming traffic than cross like a sheep at the traffic lights
Vastly safer to cross where there is no traffic control devices? I think that an intersection full of warning signals edges the risk into your favour as opposed to crossing on a section of road where drivers are not expecting cool hipster rogue sheep to be crossing randomly…
I think that an intersection full of warning signals edges the risk into your favour
Here's a tip for you, if there's a higher than completely negligible risk in crossing the road you're doing it wrong.
drivers are not expecting cool hipster rogue sheep to be crossing randomly…
What? There's nothing random about me crossing the road, it's explicitly chosen when safe to do so. And what any drivers may or may not be expecting is entirely irrelevant because, again, I'm not crossing in front of oncoming traffic.
Here's a tip for you; traffic lights all over an intersection or crossing area gives a greater chance of vehicles seeing you and stopping because they are expecting there to be crossings and signals.
And unfortunately, not everyone is a world champion road crosser. But the fact remains, on an open section of road, cars are not expecting people to be crossing. At traffic lights or designated crossings, there is a reasonable expectation that cars will stop and that people can cross.
So, again , vastly safer is absolutely rubbish. If it was vastly safer to cross at a place other than a designated crossing area, then designated crossing area would not exist, because it would be safer to cross anywhere you like.
Only pedestrians who are morons get killed, just as Darwin dictates. Crossing the road is NOT rocket surgery, only the dumbest and drunkest (i.e. dumbest) get hit. I've been crossing the road since I was a little kid, nothing to it. Only nanny government likes to make it seem difficult.
In Victoria alone 40 people a year are killed crossing the road.
I don't think they were all 'morons'.
Yes, they are.
Because "movement"… if they keep walking, they feel like they are getting there faster. Stopping at the traffic lights to cross feels like wasting time.
Example of this: I have a friend who will go miles out of his way around a traffic jam and take longer to get there then to just get through it, all because he says, "I just want to be moving." It gives the illusion to some that they will get there faster…
Similar thing is that one tool cutting in and out of traffic and speeding off at the lights, only to get 5 or 6 sets of lights away and they are only 1 or 2 cars ahead of you… why bother?
Don't know if I'm right, but it's just my observation…
Oh, and "morons" comes to mind.