Tom Vanderbuilt’s latest Slate column discusses jaywalking and why its enforcement is really just pro-car bias, and not the danger to pedestrians that is claimed. Tom is the author of Traffic:Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us), and blogs at howwedrive.com.
Consider these statements of two officials from the Mesa Police Department:
Jaywalking, when a person walks anywhere other than a designated crosswalk, is a crime, Mesa police spokeswoman Diana Tapia said.
“…It is a concern and it’s illegal,” [Mesa Police Crime Prevention Officer Patty] Gallagher said
– Mesa reminder: Jaywalking not only illegal, it’s unsafe. The Arizona Republic January 9, 2008
First off, jaywalking is not in any way-shape-or-form a crime, it is a civil matter — but we can write that off to sloppy wording. More substantively, Ms. Tapia is apparently unaware (as are many drivers!) of the concept of an “unmarked” crosswalk! (*all* intersections have crosswalks; regardless of striping or no… unless crossing is expressly prohibited). Also, jaywalking (though not defined legally in Arizona) means “crossing between intersections”, which is typically not prohibited.
Sadly, both officials show either ignorance of the law, or disregard for what the law actually says. (The Mesa, AZ ordinance is reproduced below). As is typical of jaywalking laws, crossing outside of crosswalks is rarely prohibited; in order for it to actually be illegal, it must be either between two adjacent intersections with signals, or in the “business district” (the Mesa business district is tiny / however as pointed out in the comment below, the defn in Mesa City Code is rather expansive).
I see parallels here in what is an apparent pro-car/anti-ped bias of police departments spilling over to pro-car/anti-cyclist bias. For example, the Tucson Police Department routinely run stings at stop signs to ticket cyclists who roll through; which is illegal but rarely fatal (I’m not aware of any fatalities in Tucson caused by the cyclist running a stop sign). At the same time, police rarely (a total of 3 over an 18month period by Tuscon PD) ticket motorists for passing cyclists too closely — behavior that regularly kills people. And this is all done under the aegis of enhancing cyclist safety — so be careful what you wish for when lobbying for additional money for enforcement, it is likely to get (mis)used for things that have no demonstrable link to our safety.
Mionske’s slant on the same topic.
Mesa City Code, see Title 10 Section 3 part 19:
When Pedestrian Shall Yield. (Reso. 990,1771)
1. Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (Reso. 990,1771)
(F) Prohibited Crossing. Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a crosswalk, and no pedestrian shall cross a roadway other than in a crosswalk in any business district.
Unmarked crosswalks at ‘T’ Intersections
(I’m warehousing this info here because I don’t know where else to put it, and I expect I’ll be able to find it if I keep it with the ped topic of jaywalking)
‘T’ intersections have THREE crosswalks, be they marked or unmarked (unless crossing is specifically prohibited by sign).
I was under the mis-impression it has always been that way — it turns out that it’s not always been that way… as it turns out, it has only been since a 1981 legislation that added the words “prolongation or” to the definition of crosswalk. Details:
In 1977, Kauffman v Schroeder (116 Ariz 104) a lower court declined to give jury instruction regarding §28-0793: “pedestrian must yield when crossing at other than crosswalk”. The driver appealed to the supreme court, who reversed the opinion, writing that the definition of crosswalk (at the time) required a sidewalk on both sides of an intersection.
In 1981, SB1201 passed, adding the words “prolongation or” to what is now ARS §28-0601(3).
In 1983, Boulware v Carbajal (138 Ariz 118) was a case very similar to Kauffman, both regarding pedestrians killed when crossing parallel to the terminating leg of a T intersection, and both regarding jury instruction of 793). I forget the details, but the court ruled that the change made in SB1201 was not merely “procedural” and thus not be applied retroactively. So I guess it was a party for the deceased pedestrian appealing, who apparently failed to get the new wording effective for their case, but perhaps the collision was from early 1981?? If that’s true it’s unfortunately, but I guess doesn’t matter now..
So T-intersections have crosswalks, whether or not marked.