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

121–130 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#121

Post by klibertp »

eloisant wrote: post #73
kozak wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People tend to get less motion sickness when they are in control of the motion (i.e. drivers are not as susceptible to motion sickness as their passengers). So in this future world you might still be allowed to hold the steering wheel (if you paid for the option of having one in the car at all), but the car will take control from you immediately as soon as it decides that someone might be in danger (just like some pr…

I'm confused, do you need to hold a steering wheel when you take the bus?

Motion sickness comes from the conflict between your eyes and the part of your ear which tells you which way is up and lets you stay in balance. It is way less of a problem in big vehicles where you have a lot of things and people to look at, which experience the same forces as you and so move the way your brain expects. Being in control of these forces is another way of aligning what you perceive and what your brain expects. Motion sickness is very real, don't discount it as a non issue.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#122

Post by 5555624 »

mieseratte wrote: post #79
DiThi wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cyclists may be restricted and anything else that confuses AI drivers. I don't think that will ever happen. It may even be the opposite: AI will drive in a way it will always be able to stop if there's a possibility that there's someone behind some obstacle that may jump to the road at any moment. Worst case scenario, beacons become mandatory. Cheap and anonymous beacons you have to carry when you're near a road. S…

I cannot imagine mandatory tracking devices, anonymous or not, ever being mandatory in the United States. That would never fly.

While I agree, car manufacturers are already monitoring and storing this data. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2018/01/1...) If the find they can sell it, they will.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#123

Post by a-priori »

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…

Oh hi, it's alternative-universe-you here with a rebuttal.

Optimal for whom? Why should I as a pedestrian have to wait or take an alternate route (e.g. a cross-walk) just to save you a bit of time and energy? Why is your time more important than mine, just because you're driving a car? Why is a pedestrian's safety less important than a bit of energy? These are people we're talking about! If there are limits or inefficiencies about stopping and starting, that sounds like a design flaw in the car to me, not in our laws.

We have certain roads where drivers get priority -- they're called freeways. Everywhere else, you're a person using the road just like anyone else. If you can't keep track of a few people walking around, then you're going too fast! Slow down. Then you'll have more time to react, and it'll even take less energy to stop.

If I were to run on foot through the streets, tackling anyone who got in my way (after all, I would have wasted time and energy moving around them!), then I'd get charged with assault. They certainly wouldn't get charged for impeding me by getting in my way, would they? Of course not, I hit them! Why does anything change just because you're sitting in a car? Why does that give you special status, to the point where it's okay to endanger other people who might want to use the road?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#124

Post by dsfyu404ed »

People really turn into extremists around here whenever the topic is cars vs bikes vs pedestrians vs anything else. Of all communities you'd think that this one would be able to discuss this in a more generalized way without getting all emotional about how cars are the devil and bikes have no manners, etc, etc.

It would be a lot easier to have a productive discussion if there were some way to have it in terms of something people find more neutral. Maybe find+replace cars with aircraft and people with service vehicles. Fork trucks, pallet jacks and foot traffic could be another substitution.

It makes sense to segregate traffic and govern their interactions with defined rules and put lots of redundancy in those rules. That's why bike lanes and sidewalks, are a thing. In ports, rail yards, construction sites, mines an anywhere else there's a lot of different traffic there's similar rules about who goes where and how they interact with each other.

Interactions between classes of traffic need to be well defined and include lots of redundant rules for safety. Redundant rules allow the slack from a violation of expected behavior by one party to be picked up by another party that is following the rules that govern how it should behave.

With regard to this article in particular, I see jaywalking laws being more a result of society tolerating micro-managerial laws than I do on any special interest group.

Jaywalking laws would have happened sooner or later. The only reason people ascribe them to the automobile industry is because the automobile took over from the horse at about the same time period where society started tolerating putting the force of law behind what's just good manners.

If someone crosses the street in a dumb manner and expects other traffic to "just deal" they're in the wrong. Whether it's a car running red light or a pedestrian or a rider on horseback cutting off an ox cart does not matter.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#125

Post by intrasight »

maxxxxx wrote: post #117
whatshisface wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a matter of time before some stupid kids start jumping in the way of self-driving cars to make them brake hard. That's when we'll see the anti-pedestrian regulations appear, by my estimation.

That's a good point. I can totally see how as a kid I would have tried to mess with self driving cars.

We messed with human-driven cars to great amusement (to us) when we were teens.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#126

Post by macintux »

jrowley wrote: post #116
mieseratte wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot imagine mandatory tracking devices, anonymous or not, ever being mandatory in the United States. That would never fly.

Maybe not mandatory but otherwise you’re liable so your insurance company requires it.

Insurance companies mandating pedestrians carry a beacon? That's even less likely.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#127

Post by Spivak »

Fricken wrote: post #107
meri_dian wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why are you being so reductionist? Drivers have to accept extremely tight restrictions on their behavior already. I feel like I'm talking to an alien that's never driven a car. I mean good lord you have to 6 month class to learn a subset of the rules of the road.

The fact that cars are given priority because its more efficient to do so doesn't imply that people think they're more important. In a world with only bikes we would make the same contract so that bikes could go faster.

Allowing cars to achieve and maintain speed increases efficiency without impacting pedestrian walk times. Compared to this, a system where roads are shared does waste energy, time, and economic value.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#128

Post by rainbowmverse »

Steltek wrote: post #120
logfromblammo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Umm, sidewalks are a separate right of way with significant barriers (parked cars)? Most train crossings are at-grade and use simple traffic lights. In congested areas, they install gates that prevent cars from barreling into trains.

You're thinking of sidewalks in a city. I don't know about elsewhere, but more populous places in Metro Atlanta have long sidewalks running between subdivisions and retail with no more than a small bump between it and the road.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#129

Post by intrasight »

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! :(

Automated speeding tickets will fix that quickly

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#130

Post by dragonshed »

adrianN wrote: post #111
clairity wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I the city cars are already not much faster than bikes. For distances below 10km or so there is hardly any difference. During rush hours bikes are much faster. I'd wager that you can reduce the top speed cars are allowed to travel significantly before the effective speed goes down by much, especially if you can improve traffic flow by e.g. vehicle-vehicle communication.

The difference is in the need for a shower and change of clothes afterwards.
Post reply on HN