A Pedestrian Victory in the War on Cars
The Freedom to Walk Act (AB 2147) has been signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, giving hope for the beginning of a trend away from the auto-centrism that’s dominated our culture for the past century.
What this legislation, authored by Assemblyman Phil Ting, does is to decriminalize the act of crossing the street when it’s safe to do so. The law, which goes into effect on January 1, 2023, defines when an officer can stop and cite a pedestrian for jaywalking - specified as only when a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of a collision.
As is true with all consequential legislation, there’s a backstory. In this instance, there are two.
In the more immediate sense, the laws have all-too-often been used as a pretext to stop and harass people, especially low-income people and people of color.
California has numerous cases in which these stops have gone wrong. In September 2020, San Clemente Police killed Kurt Reinhold after pulling up to him and falsely accusing him of jaywalking. In the Bay Area, Chinedu Okobi was killed nearly four years ago in Millbrae by San Mateo County deputies in an attempt to arrest him for jaywalking. And in 2017, Sacramento Police beat Nandi Cain after stopping him for jaywalking, causing serious injuries.
The victims in each of these cases were African American, and video captured each incident. In addition, 2018-2020 data compiled by the California Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) shows Black Californians are severely overrepresented when it comes to being stopped for jaywalking, up to four-and-a-half times more than their White counterparts.
In a long-term sense, AB 2147 rights a wrong dating back a century.
Bloomberg’s City Lab interviewed Peter Norton, an assistant professor at the University of Virginia and the author of Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City:
“If a child is struck and killed by a car in 2012, it is treated as a private loss, to be grieved privately by the family,” Norton says. “Before, this stuff was treated as a public loss – much like the death of soldiers.” Mayors dedicated monuments to the victims of traffic crimes, accompanied by marching bands and children dressed in white, carrying flowers.
“We’re talking less about laws than we are about norms,” says Norton. He cites a 1923 editorial from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch – a solidly mainstream institution, as he points out. The paper opined that even in the case of a child darting out into traffic, a driver who disclaimed responsibility was committing “the perjury of a murderer.”
Norton explains that in the automobile’s earliest years, the principles of common law applied to crashes. In the case of a collision, the larger, heavier vehicle was deemed to be at fault. The responsibility for crashes always lay with the driver…
…Public opinion was on the side of the pedestrian, as well. “There was a lot of anger in the early years,” says Norton. “A lot of resentment against cars for endangering streets.” Auto clubs and manufacturers realized they had a big image problem, Norton says, and they moved aggressively to change the way Americans thought about cars, streets, and traffic. "They said, 'If we’re going to have a future for cars in the city, we have to change that. They’re being portrayed as Satan’s murdering machines.'"
Even the term “jaywalker” is the result of a deliberate effort by the newly-emerging automotive industry in the early 20th century to counter public demands limiting the speeds at which motorized vehicles could travel on city streets.
These new fangled vehicles were considered intruders on local streetscapes. The terms “joy rider” and “speed maniac” were insults shouted at aggressive motorists. Implicit in the use of these pejoratives was the assumption that people on foot, including children at play, had a rightful claim to street space.
As incidents involving children and senior citizens increased, there was growing public sentiment for limiting the speeds at which autos could travel, and since official limits (often at 8 mph) were ignored, the idea of mandating governors on vehicles using city streets came to the fore.
From Street Rivals: Jaywalking and the Invention of the Motor Age Street, published in Technology and Culture, Volume 48, Number 2:
In a survey, two of every three police chiefs agreed that their cities should require governors on automobiles. Such a plan won mass support in Cincinnati, where 42,000 people—more than 10 percent of the population—signed petitions in 1923 for a local ordinance requiring governors that would shut off automobile engines at twenty-five miles per hour. Terrified city automotive interests organized a massive and well-funded “vote no” campaign, and on election day, voters crushed the plan
Defenders of the automobile coined the phrase “jay walker” as a response to the “joy rider” insult.
A jay was a country hayseed out of place in the city. By extension, a jaywalker was someone who did not know how to walk in the city. Pedestrians had assailed motorists as a privileged class; jaywalker was similarly a broad-brush condemnation of willful pedestrians as boors.
Taking a page from the procedures adopted in industries making safety the responsibility of the worker, the auto industry and its allies sought to “educate” the public.
By sponsoring safety education in schools, motordom made the next generation enemies of jaywalking. By the late 1920s AAA led the field in classroom safety instruction. A feature of the new safety education during these years was orchestrated peer pressure. In 1925 1,300 Detroit school children gathered to witness the public trial of a twelve-year-old accused of “jay walking”; the student jury convicted the defendant, sentencing him to wash school blackboards for a week. In 1930 a Texas junior high school pupil convicted of jaywalking by his young peers was ordered to write an essay titled “Why I Should Not Jay Walk,” in which he had to explain that jaywalking “is against the rules of the city and the school.”
The success of the motoring industry campaign coincided with a shift in urban planning away from central population centers to what’s now referred to as urban sprawl. Street designs then primarily considered the needs of drivers, failing to account for people who are not in cars.
*** Commercial Break…
***
This change in the law regarding crossing the street also has long-term implications. The protest slogan “the streets belong to the people” comes to mind here. The liberalization of pedestrian access is a significant step toward a future that is all-inclusive when it comes to getting us from one place to another.
Now it’s time to do the opposite of what happened a century ago, namely a major effort to influence safer driving habits. That’s going to be a tough one. I’m really sick and tired of these assholes who think their two ton truck is an instrument to intimidate people with. If we can’t get governors put in those things, how about a remote kill switch?
They get it in Europe. In Paris, Amsterdam, and Barcelona, for example, city planning and infrastructure development has moved away from being primarily car-centric and the results in terms of quality of life and environmental impact have been remarkable.
Any long-term solution to the problems associated with greenhouse gasses must involve reducing our dependence on automobiles; even if we somehow convert to electric vehicles.
Our area’s joint governance/infrastructure mechanism, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has thus far failed us when it comes to a better future for the environment.
I doubt the public will ever trust them with another sales tax increase aimed at building transportation infrastructure after they’ve been busted for lying about the finances for years and years. And the squabbling led by the small-minded small city officials, along with a dedicated misinformation campaign has forced the group to drop a road use tax/fee to be put in place in the 2030s.
Yes, indeedy, the Carl DeMaios of this world should celebrate while they can. The “road tax” they decried may be dead, but the likely alternative is really going to piss them off.
Since we can’t build any more trolley lines or other mass transit based on the revenues available, a less costly plan has become more attractive.
Heh, heh. Read it and weep.
***
Don’t get me wrong here. I live in a one car household. As things stand, we need to use that vehicle on a regular basis. But that doesn’t mean I have to assume this transportation option is the only one that works in the future.
Email me at WritetoDougPorter@Gmail.com