Join 3,440 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Citizen wins 3-year battle on bogus jaywalking ticket,
July 20, 2001 6:37 AM   Subscribe

Citizen wins 3-year battle on bogus jaywalking ticket, but his lawyer pockets most of the $27,500 settlement. Ahh, well, at least he fought the good fight and won.
posted by fleener (12 comments total)

It would be more satisfying for me if the cops publicly apologized.
Never happen though, that's too much like what grown men would do.
posted by dong_resin at 7:34 AM on July 20, 2001

Getting the police department to admit that they improperly trained their officers is a pretty big accomplishment, too.
posted by waxpancake at 8:26 AM on July 20, 2001

That's a good story, and a damned fine one to read first thing in the morning. Thanks.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 9:10 AM on July 20, 2001

Too bad Judge Kent wasn't presiding- oh, imagine the fun if this case had taken place in good ol' Galveston, Texas!
posted by hincandenza at 9:55 AM on July 20, 2001

"This statute describes in which circumstances the motorist or pedestrian should receive right of way. It also tells you which side of the crosswalk you are expected to walk on."

As far as I can tell, jay walking is a bullsh*t 'crime' designed to incriminate those who would rather walk convenient routes between places rather than drive. I've never heard of anyone being fined or arrested in the UK for this offence. Getting a fine for crossing when it says Don't Walk? Puh-leese!
posted by wackybrit at 1:06 PM on July 20, 2001

wackybrit: Er. no. I think the idea is to protect the drivers from having to brake hard swerve out of the way of people trying to cross the street just 10 feet away from the crosswalk, which has has happened to me more times than I care to count. Okay, so that's just my opinion. But really, there are clearly marked spots on the road specifically for people to cross on, usually accompanied by traffic lights to stop traffic for you. Not to mention the $100 fine (that I've never seen enforced) for failing to stop for someone trying to cross the road -- *if you're in a crosswalk*. It's a safety thing, for drivers *and* pedestrians.

If you cross a street outside of a crosswalk when there's one painted on the road in plain sight just a few feet away, I'm certainly not going to stop for you, unless not stopping would mean running you over. If there are none, of course, I'll gladly stop if I see you in time and can safely do so.

"As far as I can tell, jay walking is a bullsh*t 'crime' designed to incriminate those who would rather walk convenient routes between places rather than drive."

I don't know how the hell you got that out of jaywalking walk on the sidewalks or the side of the road. You don't walk back and forth across them. When you do need to cross, you find a crosswalk, unless there isn't one around. The roads, after all, are for the cars.

"Getting a fine for crossing when it says Don't Walk? Puh-leese!"

Jaywalking isn't crossing when it says Don't Walk -- that's called "being a moron." Jaywalking is know what? I'm not even going to explain it. I shouldn't have to; it's in the article.

As a bit of an aside, this is the first time I have *ever* heard of a jaywalking fine being enforced, though I don't doubt it's happened before. I suspect it's one of those "add-on" fines, the ones that are rarely given alone, but as "extras" on top of other charges. Like if you get pulled over for speeding, and the cop sees you aren't wearing your seatbelt, or something.

I do think a fine for it is, depending on the amount of the fine anyway, a little rediculous. But what else are you going to do to effectively enforce the law? Make them walk back to the other side and take a crosswalk?
posted by CrayDrygu at 2:55 PM on July 20, 2001

I've been told that you're not a true Seattleite until you've received a ticket for jaywalking.
posted by kindall at 3:26 PM on July 20, 2001

Hmm. I'm leaving for Seattle in just over an hour. Good to know. =)
posted by CrayDrygu at 11:36 PM on July 20, 2001

The roads, after all, are for the cars.

Actually, the roads are for ALL means of conveyance. That would include bicycles, horse-drawn carriages, roller skaters, pogo-sticks, skipping enthusiasts, etc. Because your car may make these other activities unsafe to pursue on a public roadway does not mean that you and your car are the sole possessors of the road - although the vast majority of those who drive seem to believe this fallacy.
posted by BoyWithFez at 10:25 AM on July 21, 2001

"The roads, after all, are for the cars."

the world, however, is for people [AND all the other life that we have the priviledge of sharing our planet with].

why is it that people inside of a car can't seem to conceive of people outside of a car? as a person who has never owned a car (partly be choice, partly by prohibitive cost), i've heard one too many Person Who Always Drives, Even To The Corner Store A Block Away complain about how bikes and pedestrians and buses get in their way and clog up the world. the world does not exist soley for you, Drivers.
posted by raedyn at 9:50 PM on July 21, 2001

If the world does not exist for drivers, why did God pave it?
posted by kindall at 9:59 PM on July 21, 2001

God had nothing to do with it, kindall, for if he had, it certainly would have been done by the first or second day. Hell, it takes these guys about 3 months to finish doing whatever they're doing to one single city block in San Francisco. (And exactly what is it that they're always doing?)

Of course, that could be because God wasn't being paid by the city to do nothing more occasionally break up the monotony of sitting around on his ass (while taking up valuable parking space) by starting up a large piece of diesel machinery at 7am and ogle even less-than-attractive women before taking a 3-hour lunch break...
posted by fooljay at 11:37 PM on July 21, 2001

« Older Slumping Sales....  |  Germans to build Dracula theme... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments