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

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#171

Post by bluntfang » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:45 PM UTC

dragonshed wrote: post #130

adrianN wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

you really don't need to shower and change your clothes. You can if you want to ride your bike fast and push your physical limits, but generally casual biking won't make you sweat more than if you were walking.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#172

Post by btbuildem » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:46 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.

Not just kids - it's a perfect way to carjack someone.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#173

Post by babygoat » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:47 PM UTC

yalph wrote: post #138

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…

Why cant we get automated bicycles and get rid of the humans on bikes?

LOL probably.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#174

Post by jackcarter » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:47 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.

In Chicago, at least, that would be implicitly legal, unless the car actually hits you:

9-60-060 Pedestrian crossing. [...] (b) No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

https://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/cdot/supp_info/o...

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#175

Post by ck425 » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:48 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #135

ck425 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And when the nearest home you can afford is 15 miles away? Any realistic plan includes high quality public transit, with at least some of it at street level.

Ok, so you have a limited number of public transport only roads and add restrictions on crossing those. Or you just follow the UK system and have no restrictions other than fear pedestrians will get hit and you reach a natural equilibrium where drivers avoid certain areas.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#176

Post by vbuwivbiu » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

the ultimate limit of roads+autonomous vehicles is an inefficient implementation of an electric railway

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#177

Post by whack » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:49 PM UTC

I sold my car 3 years ago, and am lucky to live in a city where I no longer need one to get around. If someone wants to ban/inconvenience cars in a place where public transit is up to snuff, more power to them. But until then, let's get realistic. Most Americans need to drive in order to live their personal/work lives. We can punitively punish drivers all we want, but ultimately, the only people we're punishing is ourselves.

Having a combination of sidewalks and roads is the best of both worlds - both pedestrians and cars are free to go as fast as they want, without having to get in each other's way. I've personally experienced the chaos of driving through unruly streets, where pedestrians can get in your way at any second. It's intensely stressful and frustrating to spend half an hour on a drive that could have been easily accomplished in 15. I'll take the smooth roads, demarcated lanes and traffic lights, thank you very much.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#178

Post by mraler » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:50 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.

Your comment reminded me of a Sci-Fi novel I read when I was a kid, it was a mystery with the background being a fully automated world, a fairly central point was that all vehicles were self-driving. Standing in front of cars to stop them was somewhere between a fad and a minor rebellion against the status quo.

Ever since self-driving cars started being a thing I keep being reminded of this book, and am half-waiting for at lease that part of it to come true.

I've been searching for a bit now, and I still haven't find it. I think it was from the 70s or 80s.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#179

Post by adrianN » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:50 PM UTC

dragonshed wrote: post #130

adrianN wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, that depends on the local climate and the rider's constitution.

But my post was not about the relative merits of cycling versus driving. I simply wanted to rebut clairity's point that making cycling and walking safer necessarily makes driving slower.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#180

Post by dsfyu404ed » Tue, Jan 16, 2018, 5:52 PM UTC

pmyteh wrote: post #156

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #124

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 some…

> Jaywalking laws would have happened sooner or later. There are no jaywalking laws in the UK. So I don't think that's true.

If a pedestrian crosses the street at a particularly inappropriate time is there a statute under which they could be fined?

The "jaywalking law" in my state is that you have to use a crosswalk if it's within 300ft. In practice this means that you either use a crosswalk, or cross the street in a reasonable manner at a reasonable time. It's like speeding. If you behave reasonably you have nothing to worry about.

The US seems to have more restrictive laws about traffic behavior and enforce them less.

If you compare jaywalking laws with the rules vehicles have to follow[1] the result is that if one party is following all their rule. It's similar to the redundancy in road traffic laws (e.g. a safe following distances and using one's signal provide redundancy that prevents rear endings when one party doesn't do one of those things)

[1] http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/pedestrian-cross...