Speed humps, stop-light installations, road signs, heightened policing, public outreach programs — all tools in the state’s traffic safety tackle box. Over the past year, significant expenditures of time and manpower have been sunk into keeping pedestrians out of harm’s way in our vehicle-centric community. Senate Bill 2630, which would decriminalize jaywalking across Hawaii, waters down those efforts and is counterproductive to the necessary mission of protecting those who choose to walk instead of drive.

State and city leaders are working overtime to ensure the safety of pedestrians on our roadways. This after a rash of traffic fatalities, punctuated by the 2023 hit-and-run death of 16-year-old Sara Yara, that is wrenching away lives young and old. Between 2019 and 2023, Hawaii saw 132 pedestrian deaths and 459 serious injuries, according to preliminary data from the state Department of Transportation.

Now being considered by the state House, SB 2630 represents a wild swing in sentiment from 2023, when legislators mulled, albeit briefly, increasing jaywalking fines to $200 from $100. The bill has a poor basis in reality, shifting the onus of safety from a mature statewide traffic code to pedestrians’ subjective judgment of road conditions. According to the legislation, a pedestrian’s “perception and judgment” are more effective than traffic lights or street markings. Perhaps in certain rural and residential areas where road traffic is minimal and streets are narrow, but certainly not in downtown Honolulu and its surrounding environs.

Traffic lights and street markings negate the need to reckon speeds of 4,000-pound, fast-moving vehicles. To reintroduce personal judgment into the equation is folly.

More troubling is a proposed change to the Hawaii Revised Statutes that would bar law enforcement from issuing citations “unless a reasonably careful pedestrian would determine that there is an immediate danger of a collision with a moving vehicle.” Like the rest of SB 2630, the language here is too vague and transfers undue responsibility to foot travelers.

Beyond safety, proponents of the legislation point to health equity and climate change benefits of walking. Both are valid considerations, but it is disingenuous to suggest that the relaxation of jaywalking enforcement will result in abrupt lifestyle changes.

On safety, other municipalities, including California and Virginia, have instituted similar modifications to their respective jaywalking codes — or abolished them altogether — and so far, those changes have not correlated with an uptick in fatalities. However, conclusions regarding the impact of such recent legislation must be made judiciously, particularly when considering locations where the walking public has for years been conditioned to obey stringent road rules.

In absence of direct, convincing evidence indicating a lack of causality between diminishing jaywalking regulations and increased pedestrian injury or death, Hawaii’s prevailing prohibitions must remain intact.

That is not to say state laws are perfect — disproportionate enforcement against people of color raise real social justice concerns. As it stands, punitive jaywalking fines are too dear for many — the current $100 can affect a week’s worth of food for a small family.

A more palatable solution: Keep existing jaywalking laws on the books, but reduce the fine.

Traffic safety is not a two-way street; compliance with the law is required by both driver and pedestrian. Decriminalizing jaywalking sends a wrong, mixed message to the public at a time when agencies are striving to bolster what few protections are in place. Drivers are also adjusting to more strident efforts to rein in moving violations.

The jaywalking proposal brings into question lawmakers’ dedication to pedestrian welfare. When it comes to foundational road rules, common sense must be applied.