With more Tolerance for Jaydriving, Salem shifts to Prohibit Jaywalking in 1923

100 years ago, back in 1923 Salem City Council passed its first ordinance penalizing the new crime of jaywalking.

February 27th, 1923

The real momentum came that spring.

March 28th, 1923

After several rounds of debate, the final package of ordinances attracted more attention for parking reform, and it was parking limits that got the big headline in November.

November 20th, 1923

For Salem, this moment in 1923 seemed to be a real cusp, a tipping point in the shift to full Autoism.

August 15th, 1923

An earlier note had expressed the sentiment that people on foot posed a greater danger than those in cars. Pedestrian control rather than car and driver control was the central matter. Jaydriving was a trivial matter. Jaywalking was the big problem. Any asymmetry in lethality was just ignored or erased.

Debate on the parking side was especially contentious. A report from May is amusing to read.

May 8th, 1923

The morning paper led with a report of intemperate debate, saying that one Councilor accused another of lying.

Characterized by low-flung and high-flung retorts and accusations some of them sizzling hot, the first definite steps toward the establishment of a safety zone for the city of Salem...were adopted....

"When people can't think of anything else to say," Alderman Suter retorted hotly, "they lie. You don't know what you are talking about. You voted against the ordinance because Suter introduced it and you thought it would hurt your business."

July 17th, 1923

Even after it was hashed over and debated some more, with car parking frequently involved, and finally adopted, one Councilor wanted to amend it.

December 4th, 1923

A year or more ago it might have been more interesting to talk about the parking debate. Even though today there is still dissent, and there are still policies to implement and details to settle, it seems that the main outlines of the debate finally has been settled: An excess of free parking is harmful and we need to rebalance between storage for cars and homes for people. 

More relevant now is the way a false equivalence between jaydriving and jaywalking continues to bedevil us in tropes of victim-blaming in death and injury.

1923 appears to be an important moment in the erosion of our streets.

---

Previously on jaywalking here:

• "Before Jaywalking: In 1914 Street Crossings Belonged to Pedestrians" (2014)
• "Cars Rule, Walkers Drool! Othering the Person on Foot" (2014)
• "Why so much Acceptance for Traffic Cone Theory of Walking?" (2015)
• "Jay Driving deserves Revival as Term of Opprobrium!"
• "Conflicting Narratives about Walking Jostle in Story on Memorial to Crosslands" (2015)
• "Why Pedestrian Rights themselves may not be Sufficient" (2015)
• "Before Jaywalking: Pedestrian Rights and a Dangerous Instrumentality in 1921" (2016)
• "A Century Ago: Speed Maniacs, Autoists, and the Fight over Road Space" (2017)
• "With Call to Revive Jaywalking Laws, City Study Whiffs on Speed" (2017)
• "Induced Demand and Pedestrian Control in 1920s Chicago" (2017)
• "Robot Cars Should not Tempt us to Try to Criminalize Improper Walking" (2018)
• "Death on Foot: Too Much on Distracted Walking Canard" (2018)
• "Portland's first Jaywalking Ordinance Took Effect 100 Years Ago" (2019)