Americans have been stripped of the right to walk

[Valmy]

"Here lies Winsor McKay,
Claimed to have the right of way."

Indeed. 

[DontSayBanana]

In the UK there is no jaywalking law and pedestrians have right of way, and roads are designed to support that with different sorts of crossing.

http://www.theorytestadvice.co.uk/learn-to-drive/crossings.php

I'm going to soften my position somewhat.

Here's the appeal judgment: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1610830.html

I've also sussed out the site and looked around it on Google, but I'll only share that with the morbidly curious via PM since I'm not about doxxing people (since the accident occurred right by her residence).  Some thoughts:

There was no crosswalk in the portion of the roadway between the bus stop and the apartment complex, but there were sidewalks leading to crosswalks at intersections located approximately 50 yards away from the bus stop.   Nelson testified that on a prior occasion, she had walked to one of the intersection crosswalks, but she did not like walking the extra distance.

Somebody confused her with the questioning.  There are crosswalks that close, true, but they cross the cross streets, not the highway.  The nearest crosswalk crossing the highway was ~1700 feet away (a third of a mile!), more than 3 times as far as the trial court had "established."

That seems like a significant factor in assessing the risk of crossing where she did.

Significantly, however, the trial court's exercise of its discretion in granting a new trial based upon its finding that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence differs from a judgment of acquittal holding that the evidence is legally insufficient.

We're all sick of my IANAL disclaimers, but I'm confused as to what legal judo went on that allowed the judge to discard the jury's verdict.  How is OCGA 5-5-40(h) even legal?  It may not technically violate double jeopardy because it makes acquittals ineligible, but there's nothing stopping a prosecutor and a sympathetic judge from throwing trial after trial at a defendant until they get what they see as a firm enough punishment, making it a de facto double jeopardy violation, not to mention a potential end-run around the right to a speedy trial.

[crazy canuck]

One thing that might explain the difference is that since our health care is publicly funded there is a significant economic incentive for government to fund infrastructure that will get more people out of cars and more active.

How do you think the causation works in this case?

One way to cut down on medical expense is prevention.  Getting people out of cars and onto their feet is a good way to improve the general health of the population.

As an example,

The authors examine the magnitude of health benefits from urban design characteristics that are associated with increased walking. Using geocoded travel diary data from Portland, Oregon, regression analyses give information on the magnitude and statistical significance of the link between urban design variables and two-day walking distances. From the coefficient point estimates, the authors link to the health literature to give information on how many persons would realize health benefits, in the form of reductions in mortality risk, from walking increases associated with urban design changes. Using a cost-benefit analysis framework, they give monetized estimates of the health benefits of various urban design changes. The article closes with suggestions about how the techniques developed can be applied to other cost-benefit analyses of the health benefits of planning projects that are intended to increase walking.

http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/27/3/341.abstract

Yeah I understand the health benefits part

What I meant was how do you figure the people making the planning decisions - primarily city planners and mayors I expect - were incentivized to prioritize walkable urban planning by the existence of universal healthcare? I have a hard time seeing the concrete motivation of those actors unless there were specific health based incentives for walkable urban planning?

A portion of municipal funding for infrastructure comes from the Provincial and Federal level.  Want a grant or funding for your pet project Mr. Mayor - lets talk about your community plan.  In addition municipalities pay directly for some of the cost of first responders such as fire fighters (who are likely to be the first on the scene to most medical emergencies)  Those are the direct costs and benefits that come immediately to mind.  Then there are the indirect benefits.  If less money is spent on health care at the Federal and Provincial levels that will leave more funding for other things that would benefit Municipalities.   

[crazy canuck]

Most actual cities in America you can get by fine without walking. But America isn't a place where it's easy to travel 20 miles if you don't have a car, there's simply not demand for robust non-driver transportation systems for local trips like that outside of a few cities. Also in America families have very little interest living in the inner city, gentrification in most American cities is being pushed by middle class and affluent young people, couples with no children, gay couples etc. So someone in a "family" mindset will find it hard to imagine how to live in the city center without all the family-oriented amenities. But the answer is the people who live there do not desire those amenities, they don't have kids, don't care too much about the quality of local schools and etc.

Interesting. In my local Canadian experience there are plenty of child- and family- amenities in or near the city centres. Not so much right in the business district, but in the residential areas there are plenty of community centres, daycares, playgrounds etc.

Yeah, but that is a recent (20 year or so) transformation.  Vancouver's inner city used to be much like what he described, and probably worse given the amount of light and heavy industry that used to be here (think of what Yale town was before it was developed).  But now you are quite right. It is very family friendly.  Again part of the deliberate civil design plan to increase the amount of bike and pedestrian trips within the city, and surrounding suburbs, and reduce the amount of trips made by car.

[Valmy]

Yeah, but that is a recent (20 year or so) transformation.  Vancouver's inner city used to be much like what he described, and probably worse given the amount of light and heavy industry that used to be here (think of what Yale town was before it was developed).  But now you are quite right. It is very family friendly.  Again part of the deliberate civil design plan to increase the amount of bike and pedestrian trips within the city, and surrounding suburbs, and reduce the amount of trips made by car.

Yeah I think this is the style these days. As I said Austin has done this as well. And its great for those who can afford to live in city centers.

[Berkut]

In civilized countries, like say the USA, cars better slow the fuck down when they see a pedestrian crossing. Even in a metropolis like NYC.

Not really. In NYC, if you run someone over with your car and kill them, it is very unlikely that anything will happen to you as a result.

Freakonomics did an episode on this a while back. Possibly the best way to murder someone and get away with it is to run them over with a car in NYC. It is nearly impossible to actually legally charge a driver for a fatal accident in any meaningful way.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pedestrian-deaths-auto-strikes-rise-nyc-article-1.1577396

The article linked has two different examples of people killed by drivers. Neither were charged with anything more than misdeamenors, like "Failure to yield".

[DGuller]

In civilized countries, like say the USA, cars better slow the fuck down when they see a pedestrian crossing. Even in a metropolis like NYC.

Not really. In NYC, if you run someone over with your car and kill them, it is very unlikely that anything will happen to you as a result.

Freakonomics did an episode on this a while back. Possibly the best way to murder someone and get away with it is to run them over with a car in NYC. It is nearly impossible to actually legally charge a driver for a fatal accident in any meaningful way.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pedestrian-deaths-auto-strikes-rise-nyc-article-1.1577396

The article linked has two different examples of people killed by drivers. Neither were charged with anything more than misdeamenors, like "Failure to yield".

That may have been the case until very recently, but I think de Blasio introduced some changes to make it easier to charge someone who kills a pedestrian.  I'm not sure what the practical effect is, though.

[Berkut]

That is good to hear...

[garbon]

I wish I had known when driving in the city.

[Eddie Teach]

Not really. In NYC, if you run someone over with your car and kill them, it is very unlikely that anything will happen to you as a result.

Freakonomics did an episode on this a while back. Possibly the best way to murder someone and get away with it is to run them over with a car in NYC. It is nearly impossible to actually legally charge a driver for a fatal accident in any meaningful way.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pedestrian-deaths-auto-strikes-rise-nyc-article-1.1577396

The article linked has two different examples of people killed by drivers. Neither were charged with anything more than misdeamenors, like "Failure to yield".

They probably didn't have any evidence of motive for the murder charge.

[garbon]

That is good to hear...

Yeah here is the companion article to your link from the end of 2014.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/exclusive-pedestrian-traffic-deaths-hit-record-nyc-article-1.2060325

[OttoVonBismarck]

Interesting. In my local Canadian experience there are plenty of child- and family- amenities in or near the city centres. Not so much right in the business district, but in the residential areas there are plenty of community centres, daycares, playgrounds etc.

We may have that in places like NYC, but it's almost an outlier in comparison to the United States at large. Most American cities have such poor school systems versus the surrounding suburbs that only very low income parents will live inside the city limits because they simply aren't willing to subject their kids to a very bad educational system. Thus, you see less stuff in the cities catering to children.

Education is probably the single biggest reason American cities have low % of families with children. It's tied in with the frankly retarded mechanism by which school districts are funded and ran.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Yeah, but that is a recent (20 year or so) transformation.  Vancouver's inner city used to be much like what he described, and probably worse given the amount of light and heavy industry that used to be here (think of what Yale town was before it was developed).  But now you are quite right. It is very family friendly.  Again part of the deliberate civil design plan to increase the amount of bike and pedestrian trips within the city, and surrounding suburbs, and reduce the amount of trips made by car.

To resurrect a lot of American cities for families you need to dramatically alter the way the educational system is funded and operated, bike paths and crosswalks just ain't what's wrong. Those are nice to haves, but parents who have options will never live where the schools are terrible.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Well at least Austin has that going for it. Downtown is an amazing place to live. The schools are excellent and there are tons of things for kids to do.

If only I was rich.

Austin has the dual social/economic benefits of having a huge university downtown and the State Capital, that makes it well positioned. Although to be honest I was in Austin maybe two years ago and stayed in the Embassy Suites on South Congress and just a short walk away from my hotel it was a pretty gross city, so you may be overstating Austin a bit. It'd be a cool place to live if I was 25-30 with no wife or kid but I wouldn't want to live downtown.

[Valmy]

Austin has the dual social/economic benefits of having a huge university downtown and the State Capital, that makes it well positioned. Although to be honest I was in Austin maybe two years ago and stayed in the Embassy Suites on South Congress and just a short walk away from my hotel it was a pretty gross city, so you may be overstating Austin a bit. It'd be a cool place to live if I was 25-30 with no wife or kid but I wouldn't want to live downtown.

Harsh. Well I disagree. But to be fair we rarely agree so there is that