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

51–60 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#51

Post by Xylakant »

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.

Jaywalking as an offense exists and you might be responsible in the case where you caused an accident, but to be fully responsible you’d probably have to jump right in front of a car or do something equally reckless. There’s a legal construction called “Allgemeine Betriebsgefahr” which encapsulates the danger of operating a car, leading to the default assumption that the driver is at least partially to blame.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#52

Post by spaced-out »

nxsynonym wrote: post #28
tedunangst wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If someone ate an orange or banana and left the peel on a park bench, I'd still consider that littering.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#53

Post by Mo3 »

mrec wrote: post #40
Mo3 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's true, but not for crossing a street on foot. This isn't Naz.. you know what, nevermind.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#54

Post by dingaling »

mattmanser wrote: post #8
wccrawford wrote: post #2

Sure, they were pro-active about it, but let's face it: It was going to happen anyhow. This just accelerated things.

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.…

> It's not a crime to "jaywalk" in the UK

It is if on a designated motorway, motorway slipway or any other highway designated as a 'special road' under the Road Traffic Act 1984.

If a person uses a special road in contravention of this section or of regulations under subsection (2) above, he shall be guilty of an offence.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#55

Post by Xylakant »

krisdol wrote: post #49
Chriky wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even if they do cross, they have the right of way. Outside of maybe the autobahn, you should never be driving a car fast enough to where you cannot see a pedestrian in time to stop for them. It's pretty unlikely that the pedestrian is ever found at fault for an accident in Germany.

No, that’s entirely not true. See http://www.iww.de/va/archiv/unfallschadensregulierung-der-fu... for a summary in German with citations of relevant cases. It’s unlikely that the pedestrian is found to be entirely at fault, though. Tables with with cases and the resulting distribution are at the end.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#56

Post by vijayr »

ryandrake wrote: post #47
vijayr wrote: post #39

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…

You say this as if it's unusual for news articles to be solely written by various company's PR and marketing teams.

But there is a difference between promoting a product vs shifting blame, isn't it?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#57

Post by dahart »

SomeHacker44 wrote: post #37
dahart wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I have found, in NYC at least, bicyclists are a much greater hazard to pedestrians than cars.

I'm sure it feels like that sometimes, and I have no doubt that in NYC that you have witnessed some bad bike behavior, but even in NYC cars are the greater threat to pedestrians by a long, long way. Here are some statistics:

Just so you don't have to read through all the links, in the three years 2014+2015+2016, there were 3 pedestrian fatalities and 932 injuries in all accidents between a pedestrian and a bicyclist. In the same time frame, there were 32,217 injuries and 421 fatalities in all accidents between a pedestrian and a car.

Between 2002 and 2016, there have been 10 pedestrians who died from a bicycle collision, and 2,345 who died from a car collision. The rate of death from bikes vs cars is 0.42%.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-pedestrian-...

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data...

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicycle-crash-data...

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2014-bicycle-crash...

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2014/10/the-rate-of-p...

Something to keep in mind is that the main reason bikers are behaving badly is defensive biking turned aggressive. It's when they're terrified of cars and don't have a safe space of their own that they act stupid. If we design better biking spaces that are separate from both the driving and the walking spaces, both behavior and safety on the whole will improve. Cities across the US, including NYC, are studying this and have been proving it true for years.

> 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.

I hope you never act on that wish, it wouldn't play out well for any party involved. (And, incidentally, it's not schadenfreude if you cause it to happen.)

I know that peds, bikers, and drivers at times are all frustrated and scared of the others. Take pity on the minority of assholes, rather than get angry. If we understand they're just scared and acting out, then we can ignore the bad behavior and focus on improving the situation as a whole.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#58

Post by poslathian »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #45
craftyguy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

The graph in the picture showed 16K deaths in 1923, for a US population of 111M then, with likely much smaller per capita driving miles than now. Now population is 323M, and there are around 5K pedestrian/car deaths annually [1]. We drive around 3 trillion miles annually[2]. If you can find the total or per capita miles driven in 1923, I think that would make the data complete. But it seems quite clear pedestrian dea…

Just to be clear, and I don’t think you said otherwise, that 5k number is only pedestrian deaths. In 2016 there were 37,000 fatalities from motor vehicle crashes.

The figure in the article is similarly reporting all automotive fatalities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths...

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#59

Post by meri_dian »

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…

There are no better alternatives. That's the point.

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”

#60

Post by kristofferR »

dingaling wrote: post #54
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.…

> It's not a crime to "jaywalk" in the UK It is if on a designated motorway, motorway slipway or any other highway designated as a 'special road' under the Road Traffic Act 1984. If a person uses a special road in contravention of this section or of regulations under subsection (2) above, he shall be guilty of an offence.

Nobody is having a problem with walking on motorways being banned - we're talking about this kind of jaywalking (walking across non-busy regular city streets, especially while black):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJFqvRwOiis

Post reply on HN