Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#21

Post by Mo3 »

rb808 wrote: post #18
mattmanser wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought jaywalking is only a thing in the US? I'm not sure who's less informed, you or me, I have no idea about the prevalence of the idea in other countries. It's not a crime to "jaywalk" in the UK, and I quote it as the concept simply doesn't exist here. Also, in the UK, if you are crossing a side street and a car wants to turn into it, officially speaking, the pedestrian has the right of way[1]. [1] https://www.…

Europe is more strict esp Germany. I heard a story that if you get hit by a car they'll come to your hospital bed to give you the bill to repair the car damage, though I'm not sure how accurate that is.

That's nonsense. Jaywalking is not a crime or offence here. You cause an accident, you're paying.

//Edit, I stand corrected. It's a very minor offence, costing you 10€ if there's no signal, if there's a signal 5€ if traffic is endangered and 10€ if an accident was caused. 10€ for crossing the Autobahn (or, more likely, your life)

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#22

Post by Cthulhu_ »

tedunangst wrote: post #17
rubinelli wrote: post #7

There was another Vox episode mentioning how manufacturers also heavily influenced our views on littering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxKfpt70rLI Suddenly that ecologically unsound packaging was no longer their problem; disposing of it properly was the consumer and the government's shared responsibility.

In much the same way I'm happy we no longer empty chamber pots by heaving the contents out the front window, I don't really care where litter or rubbish comes from but I'd prefer it not pile up on the sidewalk.

Same, or that we have to dodge or wait for pedestrians when we're trying to get somewhere. I mean we do but only rarely if people abide by the laws / common sense.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#23

Post by gambiting »

725686 wrote: post #12
gambiting wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already true in many places, in a lot of European cities you see a sign like this when entering: https://lsmlomza.pl/pliki/2014/03/lsm-znak1.jpg And it basically means that pedestrians have an absolute priority before cars, they can walk on the street as much as they like and you as a driver have to exhibit some extreme attention because if anything happens, it's 99% certain you will be found at fault.

Is that sign real? It is awful design. The meaning is complete obscure to me.

It is very much real. And it's a standardized design, meaning it's taught during mandatory driver training(which includes a test on road signs):

http://i.iplsc.com/-/0006J53JX8C294TS-C411.jpg

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#24

Post by meri_dian »

This is silly.

>"Ultimately, both the word jaywalking and the concept that pedestrians shouldn't walk freely on streets became so deeply entrenched that few people know this history"

The article makes it seem like the only reason the rules exist as they do now is because some industry players forced us into this situation.

No. The rules exist now because the majority of people agreed that cars should be given the road and people should be given the sidewalks, and that people darting to and fro on the street would be very bad for everyone involved.

Sure the car industry backed these ideas, but people accepted them because they made sense.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#25

Post by schlowmo »

725686 wrote: post #12
gambiting wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's already true in many places, in a lot of European cities you see a sign like this when entering: https://lsmlomza.pl/pliki/2014/03/lsm-znak1.jpg And it basically means that pedestrians have an absolute priority before cars, they can walk on the street as much as they like and you as a driver have to exhibit some extreme attention because if anything happens, it's 99% certain you will be found at fault.

Is that sign real? It is awful design. The meaning is complete obscure to me.

Those signs differ from country to country, but the design is very similar. In Germany this sign looks like this

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verkehrsberuhigter_Bereich#/me...

The official meaning is "begining of a traffic calming area" (verkehrsberuhigter Bereich) but most people call it "Spielstraße" (literal translation "street for playing"). I don't know if the sign was designed after the common term for those streets or vice versa.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#26

Post by Invictus0 »

meri_dian wrote: post #24

This is silly. >"Ultimately, both the word jaywalking and the concept that pedestrians shouldn't walk freely on streets became so deeply entrenched that few people know this history" The article makes it seem like the only reason the rules exist as they do now is because some industry players forced us into this situation. No. The rules exist now because the majority of people agreed that cars should be given the roa…

The article is a historical overview, it's not talking about a "problem". It talks about how the auto industry changed the perception of what streets are for, and clearly, they did such a good job that you can't even imagine a world where roads are not for cars.

And yes, cars are bad for pedestrians. They impede their travel, sometimes hit them, cause air and noise pollution, and are highly space inefficient. We allow cars in cities so that we can traverse cities more easily, but from a pedestrian's perspective, cities would be far better without cars.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#27

Post by mlinksva »

Now is an opportunity, perhaps first in ~100 years, perhaps last, to recover the streets for unaugmented humans: slow down cars in urban areas, increase qualifications for humans to drive, eventually ban human drivers entirely, leaving only automated vehicles with enough sensors and going slowly enough to reduce auto-related deaths for pedestrians and passengers alike to zero.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#28

Post by nxsynonym »

tedunangst wrote: post #17
rubinelli wrote: post #7

There was another Vox episode mentioning how manufacturers also heavily influenced our views on littering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxKfpt70rLI Suddenly that ecologically unsound packaging was no longer their problem; disposing of it properly was the consumer and the government's shared responsibility.

In much the same way I'm happy we no longer empty chamber pots by heaving the contents out the front window, I don't really care where litter or rubbish comes from but I'd prefer it not pile up on the sidewalk.

The difference is that one is biologically unavoidable and the other is stubbornness in the name of saving production costs.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#29

Post by jablan »

meri_dian wrote: post #24

This is silly. >"Ultimately, both the word jaywalking and the concept that pedestrians shouldn't walk freely on streets became so deeply entrenched that few people know this history" The article makes it seem like the only reason the rules exist as they do now is because some industry players forced us into this situation. No. The rules exist now because the majority of people agreed that cars should be given the roa…

There are ways to move around other than driving, you know...

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#30

Post by Chriky »

rb808 wrote: post #18
mattmanser wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought jaywalking is only a thing in the US? I'm not sure who's less informed, you or me, I have no idea about the prevalence of the idea in other countries. It's not a crime to "jaywalk" in the UK, and I quote it as the concept simply doesn't exist here. Also, in the UK, if you are crossing a side street and a car wants to turn into it, officially speaking, the pedestrian has the right of way[1]. [1] https://www.…

Europe is more strict esp Germany. I heard a story that if you get hit by a car they'll come to your hospital bed to give you the bill to repair the car damage, though I'm not sure how accurate that is.

Culturally, I've noticed Germans will absolutely not cross before the green man, even if there are no cars.

In the UK it is very common to cross even if the man is red. I've been in walking conversations with continental Europeans in London, then suddenly noticed they aren't at my side any more because they stopped at a crossing that was clear.

Post reply on HN