Law on the books but never enforced: jaywalking (Agamben, 53)
Jaywalking is one of the most exaggerated laws. A law instituted for protection is rarely ever enforced. If the law is never followed what is its purpose and ought it remain?
When jaywalking is followed, fines are handed out. Yet many a time it goes unnoticed. There is no copper no problem. No cars just cross. Why wait? No one’s gonna get hurt. Yet it is precisely the mindset of this doesn’t matter now that is the hardline of contemporary thinking. This law matters in this context. Jaywalking makes sense in the daytime or in an urban atmosphere but not with little regulation. Seatbelts and helmets weren’t enforced and at times still not enforced. Why do so? Why not give a ticket? Why conform? It many regards safety is at stake even if not in the moment. Is there a harm in crossing the street at midnight or bike riding around the culdesac? No danger yes problem. The possibility of danger puts the law on the books. The liability is on the law breaker. The entire premise of safety is ensuring protection of the civilian but if that civilian puts themselves in danger the blame shifts to them. Instead of debating who is at fault, if safety measures are taken into account injuries will be lower and blame will be less.
The law is there as a hazard against potential injury. Yet is rarely followed. The law isn’t reinterpreted, it is flat out ignored. It sounds like a stupid law. Don’t cross when there are cars. Why not cross when there aren’t cars. This logic subverts the law for the progress. This light is taking too long therefore crossing abruptly when no cars are in sight is approved. Yet officers can still issue tickets for doing so. The law may not be followed but disobedience does not render the law moot. The law remains afloat and affirmable. It can be costly if people aren’t careful bad things can happen. It is a lack of concern for one’s own merit that can lead to one’s demise. The officer is necessary to teach a lesson. Do not cross lest a bad thing happen. Deterrence for safety. The law remains necessary insofar as people are wilfully crossing the street. People are placing themselves in harms way. Even if a car isn’t coming at that moment, maybe out of nowhere a car will speed up or maybe the civilian will trip and fall. The law to promote safety and scare crossing the street. Do not do so because you may be fined. The punishment is hefty though more than that is the habituation to wait for the light to change.
Jaywalking is crossing aimlessly at an unspecified location. The state places crosswalks at intersections. At areas that notify the the driver of pedestrian crossing. The crosswalk is an illustrated pathway that guides the pedestrian to the other side of the street. Anyone can run across a street but that is dangerous. The point of the crosswalk is to illuminate to the driver to be aware. Most places assume that as long as the pedestrian yields to the driver and it is safe then can cross. People have pretty much abandoned the law altogether with officers failing to really cite anyone. Yet the underlying theme must not be ignored. The crosswalk at an intersection is a detailed marker of pedestrian crossing. Of the pedestrian right of way except at a traffic light where the light assumes control of whose turn it is. The fact the law remains is on the one hand from tradition but also from safety. It exists on a metaphorical level in many regards.
If a law has lost its practicality ought it be stripped from the record? Not necessarily. The value of jaywalking is the value of safety. Whether or not it is enforced does not take away from its overall meaning and necessity. People need to be aware of upcoming traffic. There is a seminal responsibility on the pedestrian. The motorist is travelling quickly so while he must be aware of the crosser, the pedestrian must not also surprise him out of the blue. It gives ample resource for the pedestrian to cross but overall it is the motorist’s right of way unless specified otherwise. Jaywalking is way of imposing safety and accountability on the pedestrian. They must be protected from their own insolence. If the law didn’t exist people may just cross whenever. They may not care for it. There seems to be some truth to this in the UK. In the US cars are far more common and driving fast on a local road may lead to an unfortunate accident. Its premise metaphorically still matters.
Yet in this regard, its legal value also remains affixed. People may not be cited for overriding but it does hold people back. People are willing to wait for the light and not hurry across the street. The law highlights the possibility of a car harming the pedestrian. The pedestrian may not be quick enough, the car may come out of nowhere. Who knows. Yet the law acts as a deterrent even if not a strong deterrent. Go at your own risk but such insolence can cost you your life if you are not careful. Such is the promise of a law on the books but not in practice. The law administers order. So many people dissent but it doesn’t lose its anchor until officers stop enforcing and yet it still impacts. The persistent disobedience has not spread everywhere. People still wait since on principle the law matters or because safety take precedence. The high probability of jaywalking will be fine. Yet there is a chance that such a risk when not specified to cross may lead to injury. In the city so many people are crossing that cars always need to be attentive. Yet in the suburban areas there is more flexibility to be driver faster.
The law ought to exist as wisdom. A law for safety. Even if it isn’t enforced it ought to make people second guess. Okay maybe just walk to the end of the road and cross at the intersection. Take a minute to wait for the light to change. There is always panic since a car can come at any time, a risk not needed. It is a value of protection and comfort for the pedestrian and the motorist.
No comments:
Post a Comment