New York Times editorial defending the term jaywalking, 1915
‘Jaywalkers’ – a truly shocking name and highly opprobrious – for people who cross city streets in the middle of blocks instead of at their ends
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9503E3D7133FE233A25751C0A9649D946496D6CF
New Zealand anti-jaywalking ad, 1950s
‘Believe it or not, they LEAP in front of moving cars. Most of them suffer from anxiety overdrive, a mania for achievement, always an urge to get their quicker. Others move as the spirit moves them…The motorist usually wins because he’s got a ton of steel behind him.’
Anti-jaywalking ad from Melbourne’s The Argus, 1950s
Crackdown on jaywalkers during Operation Halo, February 2012
The invention of jaywalking
http://m.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/04/invention-jaywalking/1837/
In defence of jaywalking
Corner of Flinders and Swanston Streets, 1900-1920
Sharing the road on corner of Elizabeth and Swanston St – circa?
Blitz on jaywalkers at corner of Flinders and Swanston Street, 2012
Push-button pedestrian traffic lights at corner Flinders Lane and Spring Street, where jaywalking is the norm
Desire path
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desire_path
I’m sure you’ve noticed that at the location of your last pic, Spring St/Flinders Lane, it used to be a zebra crossing. Even if unsignalised, given it’s a one way street, pedestrians would always have priority over motor vehicles turning into the street. (I wonder if it was considered a safety risk, and if signalising has improved that aspect at all?)
Jaywalking is an early (the first) example of privatization of public space. Previously legal (and normal) public behaviour was criminalizes in favour of private car users. There is no reason why car users should have a greater right to public spaces – it is purely a policy choice. In cities where pedestrians and cyclists are given priority in public spaces, speeds limits are dropped and jaywalking is no longer a problem – indeed, they even call it by its correct name: “walking”.
Agree with FelineCyclist (lovely imagery-inspiring name btw). I also think it quite scary that almost no responsibility is rested with the driver’s, it shows how much we have accepted cars as part of our society and how much ‘power’ we have apportioned to both their manufacturers and users. I personaly believe a car is almost as dangerous as a gun. However, if a person holding a gun finds somebody accidently gets between them and their target, they tend to stop pulling the trigger. This is unlike some (but not all) car drivers I have met, who will actually keep driving at somebody…to hurry them up…!!! This is a human life in front of them! People are strange…
Great article! And FelineCyclist, there is actually a good legal argument (yet to be tested, unfortunately) for motorists having a lower priority on road space than cyclists and walkers. You see, motoring is a dangerous activity rather than a risky activity, risk is our personal assessment of danger to us and affects nobody but us, while motoring emits danger outward to others, even when done responsibly, hence motorists are licenced. A licence is a privilege to undertake an activity only if the licencee undertakes the activity according to compulsory conditions. Therefore, driving is a privilege, where cycling and walking in a socially acceptable way is right as supported by common law freedoms in Australia.