How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking” • Hacker News Board

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#101

Post by Symbiote » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:01 PM UTC

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.

> Europe

I think you should probably know better than to try and generalize all of Europe on a topic like this.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#102

Post by mc32 » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:01 PM UTC

Point taken. However, when new tech comes along, new laws follow in their wake.

When people moved from farm to city and suddenly we had massive amounts of worker abuse, labor laws got introduced.

Barnstorming aviation gave way to regulated aviation.

It's not exactly the same, but it's similar in that it's a reaction to change in the operating environment. I mean, before cars, streets tended to be narrow and generally ad hoc. Today streets are prescripted and need to meet various contextual requirements (volume, traffic flow, vehicle types, pedestrians, weight limit, wear characteristics, etc.)

When a car gets crushed on the tracks, it's usually not blamed on the train. It's typically thought of as the responsibility of the car driver.

Now, sure, trains are constrained by tracks and don't enjoy manoeuverability, but same with ships, the little ones get out of the way.

Cars can't stop on a dime, so we put the ones on the entity with the most manoeuverability, in this case people.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#103

Post by clairity » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:01 PM UTC

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.

let's make walking and biking cool, but not at the expense of fast personal transport (cars).

the best solution isn't to try to slow down the cars but rather to make mixed-use urban areas the default so that walking and biking become the norm. you also get all kinds of other benefits with that (less traffic, healthier air, more fit people, etc)

i agree that driving qualifications should be more strict, but probably in a different dimension than you: test drivers on situational awareness and predictive decision making. fail people for both distracted driving and indecision (and lack of follow-through), as well as not communicating intent (e.g, signaling) to other drivers.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#104

Post by ck425 » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:03 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #72

makmanalp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we could be living in a situation where pedestrians take precedence and have right of way over cars in city streets, and the opposite in highways, which I think would be much more desirable, especially in crowded cities. Perhaps even ban cars except for abutters, commercial vehicles and emergency vehicles from the densest city center areas. God that would be a relief. edit: OK, yes, obviously you can and should…

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 create a legal distinction between right of way and 'right of blockage'. Such a thing might exist already.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#105

Post by Symbiote » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #64

krisdol wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You have the right of way when crossing against a signal? Why bother with signals then?

What is the alternative? That vehicles have no obligation to stop when a pedestrian is in the road?

I think your reasoning belongs with whatever lies behind the need for the "State law: Yield to Pedestrians in Crosswalk" signs[1] which I find confusing in the USA. In which states am I not supposed to yield?

[1] https://images.roadtrafficsigns.com/img/lg/K/Yield-To-In-Cro...

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#106

Post by ck425 » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #50

makmanalp wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, we could be living in a situation where pedestrians take precedence and have right of way over cars in city streets, and the opposite in highways, which I think would be much more desirable, especially in crowded cities. Perhaps even ban cars except for abutters, commercial vehicles and emergency vehicles from the densest city center areas. God that would be a relief. edit: OK, yes, obviously you can and should…

It would be chaos. You’d have some jackass walking in the middle of the street as slow as possible, meanwhile people who actually have some place to go are all sitting around waiting on some fool who wants to play hacky-sack in the street.

Then you stop relying on moter transport and start using your legs in cities.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#107

Post by Fricken » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:05 PM UTC

meri_dian wrote: post #69

a-priori wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dri…

You're not understanding the situation. The nature of all parties involved means that what we have now is the optimal compromise. Given the inertia of cars, starting and stopping frequently takes tremendous energy. Cars having to avoid pedestrians would waste tremendous amount of energy. Also when you're driving you're focused on what's in front of you. People darting to and fro on the street is almost impossible to…

Why do we grant special entitlements to people who opted to use two tons of steel to move one person? That sounds to me like a reason to place heavy restrictions on their behavior. There's an implicit assumption somehow being in a car makes you more important than someone who isn't. And any argument that presumes a pedestrian is wasting energy over someone who has chosen to drive in a car is absurd.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#108

Post by simias » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:05 PM UTC

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.

I don't think you can make a general rule for Europe at large. Germany is definitely very strict about this, most people won't cross if the pedestrian light isn't green even if there's no car in sight. Meanwhile in my experience German drivers always stop to let you pass when you have right of way.

On the other hand if you go to France everybody crosses everywhere all the time and most drivers won't stop to let you cross on a walkway unless you're already on the middle of the road. I don't know if jaywalking is an offense over here but if it is I have never ever seen it enforced. You could jaywalk right next to a cop and nobody will care.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#109

Post by clairity » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:06 PM UTC

logfromblammo wrote: post #89

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.

I think the answer to pedestrians versus cars is the same as for cars versus trains: grade separation. Turn the sidewalks into elevated walkways. Or use pedestrian tunnels underneath the road surface. Pedestrian crosswalks are a money-saving measure, ignoring one of the many externalities involved in automobile manufacture. Cars simply should not be driving on pedestrian walkways, and pedestrians should not be walkin…

put the cars underground, not the pedestrians. let the cars go fast and let the people stroll in the sunshine.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#110

Post by appleiigs » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:06 PM UTC

konschubert wrote: post #74

appleiigs wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't watch the vid right now, but I don't see how it's not the consumer's responsibility of where they put their trash. It's also the consumer's responsibility to demand environmentally friendly packaging.

The most effective way to handle this is via federal laws.

I agree with you. Laws should reflect what society (collective individuals) want. It's all driven by individuals who should take responsibility, not say it's the corporation or government's fault.