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

181–190 of 443 posts

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#181

Post by wildmusings »

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.

Anti-pedestrian is a curious way of describing a rule that demands basic social cooperation. Are stop signs, red lights, and crosswalks “anti-car”?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#182

Post by btrettel »

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.

Transportation cyclist in Texas here. The need for showering is overstated, I think. Even with the summers here I only know one cyclist who would take a shower after cycling, and they only do so for their training, not their commute as far as I know. If you ride at a comfortable pace and are in good shape, I find that a quick 5 minutes in the bathroom to freshen up is plenty, if it's even necessary. I usually wipe sweat off my head and chest and sometimes will change clothes. Outside of the summer these steps are rarely necessary, by the way.

Also, I think I would frequently (perhaps not every time, but at least 25% of the time) beat a driver to the door of my workplace from my apartment because of a combination of cars not actually being much faster than me due to traffic, stop lights, etc. and parking. My parking is so small that it's a lot closer to my building. This obviously depends on where you work, but here it seems to be a major factor. (On second thought this would also depend on which lot the driver would park in. Most would have a long enough walk to make cycling faster or at least about the same. I also haven't done this race, for what it's worth. Anyway, the point stands: travel times for cyclists are not necessarily worse than drivers.)

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#183

Post by dsfyu404ed »

maym86 wrote: post #92
jstanley wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why should there be a ticket for not waiting for red arrow to turn green so I can take a left when I could take the same left into a parking lot 500ft down the road?

Traffic laws have redundancy to provide damage control for parties that don't follow the rules that apply to them.

Cars aren't allowed to hit people. People aren't allowed to cross in certain places. Hopefully at least one party is doing what they're supposed to do at all times.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#184

Post by adrianN »

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.

Self driving cars are not magic and judging their braking distance is not much easier than with a human driver. I think kids trying that will quickly find out that it's not too hard to make an autocar hit a human. In other words, I think the problem would quickly solve itself.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#185

Post by n4r9 »

Tiktaalik wrote: post #96
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…

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.

Much better would be smart traffic lights that allow pedestrians or other roads to cross when there are no cars approaching for n seconds. The number of times I've waited for several minutes at a stop light in the middle of the night...

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#186

Post by Lukeas14 »

Not surprising to read that Los Angeles was the starting point for jaywalking laws. Still today, it enforces them harder than most other cities. Try running across an empty street with no crosswalk for 1/4 mile in either direction in front of a cop. It's likely that you'll still receive a fine citation. I'd like to see it replaced with an "impeding traffic" law that would only apply if you're actually putting yourself or others in danger. But I presume the city makes too much money from the current jaywalking law to make that change.

The relationship between automakers and L.A.'s city government back in the 20s an 30s is an interesting topic. They seem to have had an enormous amount of power over the city. Automakers were instrumental in shutting down the extensive subway system as it transformed into the car based city it is today. Was this due to corruption or was L.A. just preparing for what we thought would be the future of transportation?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#187

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#188

Post by sigstoat »

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.

i don't understand; it is already a violation of traffic law to jump in front of cars. if you survive the punishment meted out by physics, the cops can fine you. what change do you think would be made if folks started doing it more often?

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#189

Post by landryraccoon »

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.

Bikes aren’t faster than cars for the elderly, the vision impaired, handicapped people or small children. I’m all for more bikes and more bike routes, but cars offer more independence for a lot of movement restricted people.

Re: How Automakers Invented the Crime of “Jaywalking”

#190

Post by whatshisface »

wildmusings wrote: post #181
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.

Anti-pedestrian is a curious way of describing a rule that demands basic social cooperation. Are stop signs, red lights, and crosswalks “anti-car”?

Well, implicitly, I meant to hint that after one or two incidents, the lobby might convince the legislature to swing way too far in the other direction. (A very common tactic. You can't just hand liability from one party to another, not in an area people know and care about.)
Post reply on HN