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

31–40 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#31

Post by m_eiman »

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.

Swedish version means ”walking-speed area”: https://www.transportstyrelsen.se/sv/vagtrafik/Trafikregler/...

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#33

Post by bwood »

Mo3 wrote: post #21
rb808 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Anecdotally, I once crossed an empty street in Munich when the crosswalk said not to and was promptly chastised by a police officer.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#34

Post by dahart »

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…

> Streets are for cars and sidewalks are for people!

That didn't used to be true. I'm fascinated by ideas that become so canonized, so ingrained that you can't even imagine the alternatives.

> This article tries to make this seem like a pedestrian dystopia compared to the good ole days when kids could frolic in the streets.

Well said, we do live in a pedestrian dystopia now. I love that many urban areas in the US and globally are now designing more pedestrian and bike friendly streets.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#35

Post by jstanley »

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…

Just because pedestrians shouldn't walk in the road doesn't mean it needs to be a crime for them to do so.

In the UK it's not a crime to walk in the road. It's just a bad idea, for the reasons you mentioned.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#36

Post by a-priori »

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…

Okay that's your opinion, and it's a fine opinion to have. But it's just one way things can work.

Another way, is to give pedestrians priority and expect drivers to exercise due caution to not hit them the same way they do other cars or trains or ambulances or whatever.

In an alternate universe where the laws had ended up with pedestrian-priority being the norm, then you'd be coming in here saying "Cars shouldn't drive freely on the streets! Streets are for people! People have been walking freely on streets forever and now you're proposing we vacate them for the convenience of drivers?" and so on.

So let me ask you this: how are you any more right than alternate-universe-you? Other than the status quo bias that you're defending the way things currently are where you (and I) live.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#37

Post by SomeHacker44 »

dahart wrote: post #34
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…

> Streets are for cars and sidewalks are for people! That didn't used to be true. I'm fascinated by ideas that become so canonized, so ingrained that you can't even imagine the alternatives. > This article tries to make this seem like a pedestrian dystopia compared to the good ole days when kids could frolic in the streets. Well said, we do live in a pedestrian dystopia now. I love that many urban areas in the US and…

I have found, in NYC at least, bicyclists are a much greater hazard to pedestrians than cars. Bicyclists don't follow traffic rules, veer centimeters away from you while speeding through painted crosswalks, ignore both car and bike-specific traffic lights. I have been nearly hit by bicyclists several times in the last year, and never had any problems with cars. And, in at least two cases, the bicyclists yelled at me for their errors and aggressive biking. It was enough to make me wish I had a steel pipe to stick in their front wheel and laugh in schadenfreude as they get carted off to the hospital.

Bikes are worse than cars. Cars respect pedestrians, at least in NYC. Bicyclists are a terror. Just my opinion.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#38

Post by walterstucco »

Invictus0 wrote: post #26
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 allo…

Streets have always been for cars in history and been dangerous for pedestrians

When I go walking around the Colosseum there's an old Roman street (2 thousand years old give or take) that was built to go faster than walking and it's still hard today with modern shoes to walk on it

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#39

Post by vijayr »

Reporters could send in the basic details of a traffic accident and would get in return a complete article to print the next day. These articles, printed widely, shifted the blame for accidents to pedestrians

To me, that is the craziest sentence in the article. Reporters were outsourcing writing to the auto industry? Of course they blamed the pedestrians! In what world is this ethical?

What is next? Sending overdose details to pharma companies for them to blame the drug users?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#40

Post by mrec »

Mo3 wrote: post #21
rb808 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I thought you could get points on your driving license, and potentially lose it with enough violations?
Post reply on HN