No. But it does in fact probably mean that it reduces your negative impact on my evironment, and I want to thank you and other car free people for encouraging that in our society.

This thread is about jaywalking, not ankle biting. If you can't play nice, you'll be asked to leave the thread.

CbadRider
Forum Admin

LOl... I'm not sure what you are talking about, but that's one pretty long sentence.

One thing I've noticed about jaywalking is that it normally applies only to wide boulevards. For example if I cross the six lane thoroughfare by my work, I believe that's jaywaking. But if I cross the two-lane street by my house, I don't think anyone would call it jaywalking...

Perhaps it's only jaywalking when it inconveniences someone (usually in a motor vehicle, but maybe even in a bike lane) ??

In the narrow context of the article referred to in your OP, its a natural choice that was supposedly denied to us by the auto industry so they could sell more cars by making them more efficient. In the same context, the actual effect of the act on safety or traffic flow isn't even a consideration.
The landlord says this thread is about jaywalking, and the article in question only uses it as a device to convey a different message, so apparently there's nothing more to say.

I think the point is that there is more than one way to make roads safe for various classes of users. One way is to ban or severely limit access for slower users (such as pedestrians), while assigning liability to the slow users if they do get injured. A second way is make fast users (e.g., car drivers) slow down and place more of the burden of liability on the fast users if they harm another user.

At one time, these different schemes were up for debate. Only one system could win, and the winner happened to be the plan for restricting access for pedestrians and making them responsible for their own safety. The other system could have won, but it didn't--for reasons that are up for debate.

This is not a "natural choice." It's a choice that was consciously made by human governments. It seems like a "natural" choice only in hindsight--in part because its proponents were so successful at changing the very way we think about roads and traffic.