As someone that nearly hit someone that walked out from behind a bush, with a chemically fueled disregard for the world, I don't think the rules are so bad. As unpopular as the opinion appears to be here, I don't like the idea of having to dodge humans randomly entering the road. Should we also take down the signals and barriers that prevent cars from crossing train tracks, since they have the similar goal of preventing a high speed object, with orders of magnitude more weight, from colliding with something relatively squishy?
edit: No need to immediately downvote. I would enjoy some discussion.
> I don't like the idea of having to dodge humans randomly entering the road
Attitudes like that are why cars are the number one killer of small children in the USA.
I think the idea is that car drivers should be able to see a human and adequately respond to avoid deadly collision (this usually means driving slowly and with more caution in areas where there are humans. this also can mean driving a lighter/smaller vehicle but that seems harder to do nowadays with cars getting beefier over time).
Trains, after operators see an obstruction on the tracks, literally cannot respond in time.
All children, and even young adults. Drivers are scything down tens of thousands of people a year and for the most part we do. not. care. We won't even charge them with negligence (again, if sober). It's OK to slaughter children with your car ("vehicular manslaughter", that is - because it's OK if it's vehicular)
> with a chemically fueled disregard for the world,
a law against it doesn't stop that kind of person.
And the rest of the world does pretty much fine without strict jaywalking laws, which doesn't mean that there are no laws regulating how pedestrians behave when interacting with street traffic, just that crossing a street safely isn't be default illegal. (and most people have the self-preservation sense to figure that out). It's also easy to create situations where not crossing a street at all is extremely impractical, and flat-out banning it then is not a good idea.
I am not downvoting you. Your comment illustrates the mindset difference here, and honestly before I left the US I wasn't so different. But as noted in the article, streets used to be for play, chatting, etc. It would be more convenient to go deer hunting on playgrounds if shooting kids on accident had no consequences, too.
Trains going any useful speed can't drive on sight because stopping distances are insane. That is why it makes sense to have signals and barriers for trains. Cars' stopping distance is about a hundredfold shorter, so we can expect drivers to drive such that they can brake if humans randomly enter the road.
edit: No need to immediately downvote. I would enjoy some discussion.