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

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#161

Post by walshemj » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:37 PM UTC

Chriky wrote: post #30

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.

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.

And in stopped traffic its normal to cross normal roads (ie not dual carriageways ring roads ).

There is also evidence that doing away with the aggressive use of traffic furniture to separate cars and people leads to safer driving. This also reduces the risk of people being crushed against railings and so on.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#162

Post by fineng123 » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:37 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #103

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 i…

America is all about revenue. Never in a thousand years would politicians agree to do this. Walking and biking is high on utility and low on revenue.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#163

Post by artpepper2 » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

Brakenshire wrote: post #139

jdhopeunique wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We could end up with roads dedicated to cars being separated from roads dedicated to pedestrians or cyclists. You could imagine if a city was designed from scratch the vehicles could move around almost in tunnel-like back-alleys, with periodic embarkation points into pedestrianized open plazas and boulevards. If Musk's reduction in cost of tunnelling is more than just a pipe-dream, then you might be able to retrofit…

It's hard enough to get bike lines built, let alone a separate road system.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#164

Post by geofft » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:38 PM UTC

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.

This is the same United States where just about everyone already carries a tracking device by choice, where lots of people have installed 24/7 network-connected microphones in their homes, and where everyone believes you need ID to fly. This is the same United States where a common political argument is that of course ID should be required to vote because ID is required for everything else, and citizens should just carry ID. This is the same US where a special police force arrests and detains citizens and forces them to prove that they're actually citizens. It's been a long while since we actually objected to the "papers, please" world.

After all, these beacons are not mandatory - they're only needed if you want to use the roads as a pedestrian or cyclist. If you don't, you can drive your car like any real (read: non-poor) American, or use a taxi or bus. Pedestrians already aren't permitted on highways, what's so different about restricting pedestrians on surface streets?

And if you don't carry the beacon, that's not illegal, it's just your fault if you get hit by a car. It's not the government forcing you to carry it, it's algorithms and corporations, which makes it okay, right? If these beacons are produced by the free market, why should government regulation step in and stifle innovation?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#165

Post by Brakenshire » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:39 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #102

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…

It follows urban design, in most of Europe jaywalking isn't a concept, because most urban roads are not large or fast-moving enough to justify it. Most people would not cross dual carriageways just by default, but that is a rare enough case not to require enforcement. And people carrying those ideas of pedestrian-friendly streets into the way new urban areas are designed. When urban motorways and dual-carriageways are the default, then the idea of what is normal is different, and those ideas are applied more generally to enforcement on other roads and planning new roads.

It would be interesting to see data about the existence of the crime, and its enforcement. I know about the US and Europe, not so much elsewhere.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#166

Post by walshemj » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:41 PM UTC

Joe-Z wrote: post #14

raverbashing wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At current city density scales? It wouldn't work New technologies require new ways of organizing things, in the same way nothing is expected to take precedence from a train in a shared crossing. It is technologically infeasible Did the automakers invent 'crossing a red light' as well? Did they invent the parking meter?

>New technologies require new ways of organizing things... I think it's pretty clear by now that organizing whole cities around the automobile was a huge step in the wrong direction and the sooner we begin to correct it the better. Just look at Copenhagen as a shining example of a city that began re-focusing its traffic on actual people (and not f *ing metal boxes taking up way too much space) decades ago.

Well yes and no not really cites would have been covered in horse dung a major health issue in pre automobile days.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#167

Post by ksenzee » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:42 PM UTC

Steltek wrote: post #142

rainbowmverse wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sidewalks found in suburban sprawl are purely decorative. Only the very unfortunate walk there because everything is miles apart from each other, making a car mandatory. Meanwhile, even super-dense cities, where walking is obvious, have to fight the ridiculous notion that cars deserve 80% of the street right of way and stupendously subsidized street parking.

No, sidewalks in suburbia are super useful for walking between houses. They're not useful for shopping or commuting, but they let kids walk to their friend's house to play. Not every trip is a commute downtown.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#168

Post by kbenson » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:42 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #113

Tiktaalik wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

To be fair, regulations put in place because kids are jumping in front of cars could be anti-pedestrian, but it could also just be anti-fucking-idiot if drafted well.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#169

Post by barrkel » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:43 PM UTC

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.

Almost all European road signs are ideographic, for obvious reasons, much more so than US signs. And they are, of course, tested as part of licensing.

There's a design language you learn: circular for mandatory, triangular for advisory, square for informational. Blue background for positive, red border for negative.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#170

Post by Overtonwindow » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:44 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.

I truly cringe at the thought of a ban on human drivers. There's a considerable amount of freedom in that ability to get in the car, and drive. Otherwise you're beholden to a machine, a corporation, and likely, a government. Trapped and unable to go anywhere unless they authorize it.

Aside, you might find this short-fiction story from Vice interesting: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/xygzvz/one-star