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

91–100 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#91

Post by eloisant »

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.…

In France you could get fined for walking outside of a crosswalk, only if there is one within 50 meters. Not sure it happens often.

When a pedestrian gets hit by a car, the driver is responsible, crosswalk or not, unless the pedestrian was drunk, or actively trying to commit suicide (but good luck proving that).

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#92

Post by maym86 »

jstanley wrote: post #35
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.

This. If it's safe to cross and the pedestrian can get across why should there be a ticket. Waiting for a light to change to cross an empty street seems crazy to me.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#93

Post by Symbiote »

richrichardsson wrote: post #80
randomdrake wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> slow down cars in urban areas This is actually happening. Portland has recently fallen in line with other cities, like Seattle, and lowered thousands of miles of streets from 25 MPH to 20 MPH. http://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2018/01/portla...

In the UK a lot of residential areas have introduced 20mph limits (down from 30mph), close to no-one (except learner drivers) obey this new limit! :(

It's still an improvement, since before they didn't obey the 30mph limit.

25mph is much better than 35mph.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#94

Post by closeparen »

konschubert wrote: post #88
closeparen wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone wants to play soccer in front of the bus or tram, what do you do? Just shut down the public transit system that day? Tell all the commuters to turn around and go home? The city is cancelled today because streets aren’t for transportation?

You're attacking a strawman.

How is it a strawman? If motor traffic can only move at pedestrians’ leisure, what happens if they decline to let it through for hours at a time? The soccer players would be committing no crime - the streets are for them first, motor vehicles last.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#95

Post by refurb »

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.

That's what I hate about articles like this. It's great for click-bait, but pretty short on the truth.

The article didn't prove that car manufacturers created jaywalking laws. The best they came up with was that they were involved in helping shape the laws that governed road. And why wouldn't they?

No doubt there were a number of different factors that led to current jaywalking laws. Auto manufacturer influence was just one of them.

But it makes for a much compelling story to simplify the issue and just call out one party.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#96

Post by Tiktaalik »

jdhopeunique wrote: post #46
mlinksva wrote: post #27

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.

If automated vehicles become popular, I predict new crimes will be added in addition to jaywalking. Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that confuses AI drivers. If certain intersections or sections of road consistently confuse AI drivers, automakers will lobby for ways to change these roadways. I suspect calls for AI regulation by people like Elon Musk are really attempts at regulatory capture to make autom…

Absolutely. I see this here on hacker news with people excited about the notion of doing away with stop lights so that AI traffic can flow easily. People are completely ignoring the existence of pedestrians and cyclists. It would not be surprising to see a new crime of "hindering an autonomous automobile" be lobbied for.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#97

Post by seszett »

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.

We use a slightly different sign in France that shows cyclists as well: https://goo.gl/maps/nHA4rtqPcrG2

In practice, many drivers do not like them, but it's probably because they are never pedestrians in those places. I often drive, bike and walk in the place shown above and I really find it nice, even if you sometimes have to wait for a minute or so for pedestrians to cross.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#98

Post by JdeBP »

virgilp wrote: post #10
throwaway2048 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We live in only one possible future.

Well, jaywaking isn't a crime in UK (except on freeways), but the general result is roughly the same.

It's not a crime on motorways. Pedestrians are not permitted on motorways at all (except for emergencies), so where and how they can cross them is a moot point.

* http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1982/1163/contents/made

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#99

Post by Steltek »

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…

It's worth noting that this is /pedestrian/ deaths from cars. Total motor vehicle deaths are around 40k a year in the US.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#100

Post by mrec »

Mo3 wrote: post #53
mrec wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hmm, apparently I was misinformed while living there. (About the points, not about being Naz...)
Post reply on HN