Columbus Police Enforce Jaywalking Laws (Dayton: 2015, neighborhoods, live in)

[Mplsite]

I recently spotted a Dispatch article where the city had cops crack down on the (formerly legal until the car industry had that changed) act of jaywalking. Why are pedestrians being singled out when they're left at the bottom of the transportation rung by the city? Having worked and lived Downtown myself and luckily never ticketed I can attest to the plethora of motorists who don't stop at legal crosswalks, not to mention the ridiculous lengths between many. Imagine if motorists were expected to take 5-10 detours all over the city instead of being able to legally take a direct route. This is really indicative of a city that hates pedestrians and gives them just about every reason to crosswalk. If you are driving in a highly populated area and can't handle a pedestrian moving at maybe 3 MPH, then you're driving too fast in that context: legal or not.

On top of that, cops ticketed pedestrians in the crosswalk. And from last year we see there were around 88 tickets issued per month even on residential side streets. But motorists who kill and main Columbus residents left and right? Well, let's just say that if Columbus were as concerned about them as they were pedestrians, who have never walked into and killed a single motorist as far I know, then the streets would have been adjusted to give pedestrians a higher priority. At least higher than none.

[wrightflyer]

Must be a sleepy city.

[Natural510]

Not sure about Columbus, but there have been a string of people killed jaywalking in Dayton recently. In the high-volume neighborhoods like Short North and downtown, there should be a crosswalk on every block. In that case, there would be no excuse for people to jaywalk.

[GenericUsername73]

Columbus wasn't built for people. Columbus was built for cars.

[Mplsite]

Originally Posted by GenericUsername73

Columbus wasn't built for people. Columbus was built for cars.

Ha! Yeah, good thing no people live there.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by GenericUsername73

Columbus wasn't built for people. Columbus was built for cars.

Parts of Columbus were built for cars, parts were not. This is true everywhere. The pre-War development of the core is much different than the post-War development. And truthfully, a lot of people like to drive and have no real appreciation for walkability. As much as I value urbanity and density and transit and walkability, it has to be recognized that the reality for many people is not the same. Certainly it is not true for post-War generations on up to Generation X, who largely moved to and live in the suburbs in every major city. Younger and more recent generations are starting to value actual cities again, but when you have 60+ years of urban disinvestment most places, it will take many years to fix. Some people (not naming names, they know who they are), believe cities can be rebuilt in a few years, but that only happens in video games, not in real life.


BTW, with just 3 posts, I suspect you are another poster who contributed to this thread merely to bring it back up again.

[Mplsite]

Not true everywhere: some American cities only contain urban neighborhoods and didn't annex land to build sprawl. I'm not surprised you dodge the question posed in this thread. In real life, sprawling suburban areas around the nation have retrofitted for better safety than Columbus has. Sprawling Mesa, AZ does a better job with a five-lane wide road where you'll notice a wide curb buffer between the streetcar/LRT (?) tracks and the main travel lanes: they even have bike lanes on both sides too! Or this St Paul suburb where a very wide intersection has a midblock median on each road at the intersection for easier crossing not to mention a separated walking/biking path along each road which all go on for several miles. But these don't exist in real life, because that would put Columbus far behind even the burbs. My question still stands unanswered.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by Mplsite

Not true everywhere: some American cities only contain urban neighborhoods and didn't annex land to build sprawl. I'm not surprised you dodge the question posed in this thread. In real life, sprawling suburban areas around the nation have retrofitted for better safety than Columbus has. Sprawling Mesa, AZ does a better job with a five-lane wide road where you'll notice a wide curb buffer between the streetcar/LRT (?) tracks and the main travel lanes: they even have bike lanes on both sides too! Or this St Paul suburb where a very wide intersection has a midblock median on each road at the intersection for easier crossing not to mention a separated walking/biking path along each road which all go on for several miles. But these don't exist in real life, because that would put Columbus far behind even the burbs. My question still stands unanswered.

The question was ridiculous and basically trolling attempt because your other pedestrian thread wasn't getting much traffic. Columbus doesn't hate pedestrians. Your question has the same value as these:

Why does Minneapolis hate warm weather? Why does Minneapolis hate minorities?

No one seriously asks these questions because they're dumb. The same with yours. Now, if you want to honestly discuss why Columbus hasn't built more pedestrian infrastructure up to this point, that may be a reasonable discussion.

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by Mplsite

Not true everywhere: some American cities only contain urban neighborhoods and didn't annex land to build sprawl. I'm not surprised you dodge the question posed in this thread. In real life, sprawling suburban areas around the nation have retrofitted for better safety than Columbus has. Sprawling Mesa, AZ does a better job with a five-lane wide road where you'll notice a wide curb buffer between the streetcar/LRT (?) tracks and the main travel lanes: they even have bike lanes on both sides too! Or this St Paul suburb where a very wide intersection has a midblock median on each road at the intersection for easier crossing not to mention a separated walking/biking path along each road which all go on for several miles. But these don't exist in real life, because that would put Columbus far behind even the burbs. My question still stands unanswered.

Great point MSP. It's why I love my hometown, Pittsburgh! They haven't altered the integrity of the city in 110 years when Allegheny City (north shore) was annexed by Pittsburgh, which has 90 distinct urban neighborhoods. Right now I live in San Diego, which is great but did a lot of annexing to bloat the city way out of the urban core. At any rate, I'm in Clairemont Mesa today, one of those sprawl areas, and I noticed even there we have marked bike lanes! Go San Diego!

[Mplsite]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

The question was ridiculous and basically trolling attempt because your other pedestrian thread wasn't getting much traffic. Columbus doesn't hate pedestrians. Your question has the same value as these:

Why does Minneapolis hate warm weather? Why does Minneapolis hate minorities?

No one seriously asks these questions because they're dumb. The same with yours. Now, if you want to honestly discuss why Columbus hasn't built more pedestrian infrastructure up to this point, that may be a reasonable discussion.

All those pedestrians being killed by motorists isn't ridiculous. People jaywalk to avoid the extra danger at intersections of turning motorists who don't care if anyone is in a legal crosswalk and for a city to actively punish those who are trying to stay alive by the time they reach the other side of the street says that said city must hate pedestrians to force them to be in harms way. We don't have to ask why Columbus hasn't built more pedestrian infrastructure, we already know it doesn't care to based on its action or lack thereof.

And again, not true everywhere.