Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

virginiamercury.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 459 posts

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#101

Post by bigwavedave »

booleandilemma wrote: post #32
msla wrote: post #26

> Before the advent of the automobile, pedestrians in America were widely recognized as having the right of way in all situations. OK, let's go back to this. You can argue right-of-way with a ton of fiberglass and steel going 35 mph. Tell us all how that works out for you. Placing blame doesn't mean anything when the laws of physics dictate which one's going to be the winner in any given scenario.

Might doesn't make right.

That's not the point OP is making. OP is saying that having the right-of-way does a fat lot of good to someone who now has to live life as a quadriplegic.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#102

Post by umvi »

chrisseaton wrote: post #69
umvi wrote: post #21

Jaywalking drives me crazy... sometimes I wish American culture was more German/Japanese in this area and Americans walked the extra 20 feet to the nearest crosswalk and waited for the light. A few times now I've had to tap my brakes for some guy dashing across the street to the island in the middle because he was too impatient to wait for the light to change. Sometimes it's a lady with a shopping cart. These aren't…

Why do you think the default should be that it's your right of way in the car? Why should pedestrians keep out of your way and not cross your path? Why don't we instead say you should keep out of the pedestrians way and not cross their path? Maybe we should reset the expectation that cars own the streets, and make them a guest there, deferring to human beings in the first instance.

> Why do you think the default should be that it's your right of way in the car?

a) Because it's the law, b) because there's a power dynamic. I can accidentally kill a pedestrian, a pedestrian can't accidentally kill me unless they throw a brick off an overpass.

> Why should pedestrians keep out of your way and not cross your path?

So that they take responsibility for their own safety.

> Why don't we instead say you should keep out of the pedestrians way and not cross their path?

Because I disagree I should be liable if someone darts out into traffic and is struck by my car.

> Maybe we should reset the expectation that cars own the streets, and make them a guest there, deferring to human beings in the first instance.

In dense cities... sure, I agree. In car-heavy suburban areas where everything is super spread out? I don't think this is a necessarily a good idea.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#103

Post by hmottestad »

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #88
hmottestad wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just checked their privacy policy: > By using Virginia Mercury, you consent to the collection and use, in accordance with this policy, of the information you provide to us. This means they don't comply with GDPR.

Although unless they do business in Europe, there would not be any legal recourse for the EU right? I'm always surprised that any business that can block all EU/GDPR users without impacting their business would even need to care about the laws in those places.

I guess the EU could fine them and then force Google to hand over this newspapers advertisement income, and Google would probably comply since they want and need to do business in the EU.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#104

Post by lazugod »

hmottestad wrote: post #65
msla wrote: post #26

> Before the advent of the automobile, pedestrians in America were widely recognized as having the right of way in all situations. OK, let's go back to this. You can argue right-of-way with a ton of fiberglass and steel going 35 mph. Tell us all how that works out for you. Placing blame doesn't mean anything when the laws of physics dictate which one's going to be the winner in any given scenario.

In Norway pedestrians have the right of way on zebras. There was a fair bit of discussion a few years ago about how someone jogging in the dark would dart across a zebra and then drivers had to slam on the brakes not to hit them. As a driver though, most roads to my right have the right of way. So if there is a road to the right where the view is blocked by some bushes or a house ... I will slow down just in case a c…

> In Norway pedestrians have the right of way on zebras.

Context for those who don’t know: zebras are crosswalks.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#105

Post by lwhi »

ravenstine wrote: post #9
rootusrootus wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume because of selective enforcement. The more that we make normal everyday events technically illegal, the more likely the police will have to pick and choose what they enforce and what they let slide. Then you have ample opportunity for that discretion to be applied in a discriminatory way.

Sure, but why make a specific point about that with jaywalking? Can't that argument be made for just about any crime? Just seems like a useless red herring to make it about race when it doesn't need to be; it's a related but separate issue to whether jaywalking should be a crime in the first place.

It's an example of a minor infraction, and police are most likely able to use their discretion with this type of lawbreaking. Other more serious crimes will almost definitely require a charge.

The fact that their discretion overwhelmingly leads to the racial bias described, shows a situation where police behaviour needs to change.

It's important to highlight it for this reason.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#106

Post by msla »

booleandilemma wrote: post #32
msla wrote: post #26

> Before the advent of the automobile, pedestrians in America were widely recognized as having the right of way in all situations. OK, let's go back to this. You can argue right-of-way with a ton of fiberglass and steel going 35 mph. Tell us all how that works out for you. Placing blame doesn't mean anything when the laws of physics dictate which one's going to be the winner in any given scenario.

Might doesn't make right.

It is invalid to derive an "is" from an "ought" in any situation.

("Cars ought not hurt people who have the right-of-way, therefore they won't.")

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#107

Post by caconym_ »

vorpalhex wrote: post #25
erulabs wrote: post #11

Seeing as encounters with law enforcement are probably more deadly on average than jaywalking - I wholly support this change. Being poor in a car city is something most folks in the circles I run in now have never experienced or thought about. The documentary “Los Angeles Plays Itself” has a fantastic section about this.

> encounters with law enforcement are probably more deadly on average than jaywalking 36 pedestrians were killed last year in accidents in my city. We have one contested police shooting. 31 the year before that, two contested shootings. At least biweekly there's an article in the local paper about someone hit while illegally crossing a highway, often at night. I have unfortunately seen a pedestrian get hit by crossin…

On the other hand, there are probably many more instances of jaywalking than police encounters, so the statement you quoted may still be correct. At 36x, I'd guess that's more likely than not—I've been stopped on foot by the police once that I can remember, and I've probably jaywalked thousands of times.

In my own anecdotal experience, the most dangerous way to cross the road is in a marked crosswalk with a signal—as in, this is how I've come closest to death by car the most times in the city where I've been living for a few decades. Intersections with these crosswalks often have traffic coming from multiple directions, and you have to really understand the local traffic patterns to cross safely without exposing yourself to a vehicle running a red light or taking a hasty left turn without checking for pedestrians.

I would be interested to know how many of the pedestrian deaths in the statistic you quoted were due to jaywalking.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#108

Post by vorpalhex »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #89
vorpalhex wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> encounters with law enforcement are probably more deadly on average than jaywalking 36 pedestrians were killed last year in accidents in my city. We have one contested police shooting. 31 the year before that, two contested shootings. At least biweekly there's an article in the local paper about someone hit while illegally crossing a highway, often at night. I have unfortunately seen a pedestrian get hit by crossin…

>I have unfortunately seen a pedestrian get hit by crossing on a red walk sign Which is an indication that jaywalking isn't the real problem here, it's inattentive drivers. How many of the 36 above were similar situations?

You're right, drivers should simply pause physics and magically stop their vehicle or wear nightvision goggles at all times.

I was making a right turn on a 40mph road on a green light. There's a crosswalk there so I checked and the crosswalk was vacant, made the turn and proceeded to get up to speed on that road.

And then immediately did a hard brake because a woman was illegally crossing the road around a bend, covered by trees, with a kid being dragged behind her, 40 feet from a crosswalk that clearly indicated DO NOT WALK.

There's a reason we have signs. Follow the signs. Having the right away is not the same as being impervious to being struck by a moving vehicle.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#109

Post by ajuc »

vorpalhex wrote: post #25
erulabs wrote: post #11

Seeing as encounters with law enforcement are probably more deadly on average than jaywalking - I wholly support this change. Being poor in a car city is something most folks in the circles I run in now have never experienced or thought about. The documentary “Los Angeles Plays Itself” has a fantastic section about this.

> encounters with law enforcement are probably more deadly on average than jaywalking 36 pedestrians were killed last year in accidents in my city. We have one contested police shooting. 31 the year before that, two contested shootings. At least biweekly there's an article in the local paper about someone hit while illegally crossing a highway, often at night. I have unfortunately seen a pedestrian get hit by crossin…

Criminalization of jaywalking is like criminalization of drug use (or ownership). It's not only not solving the problem - it's actively making it worse.

The right way to fix pedestrian deaths on the streets is to slow the traffic down. It's a solved problem. It's been tested all over Europe. It works.

As a bonus you get walkable cities, less suburbanization, smaller rich-poor division, less crime in the cities, less traffic jams, more people using public transport and bikes, less air pollution and CO2 emissions.

Re: Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime

#110

Post by mytailorisrich »

Anon1096 wrote: post #81
asutekku wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they want to do business in europe they should follow the european laws.

This site clearly doesn't want to, but you still have people like the GP and others here complaining. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If commenters here want sites to have the option to not deal with Europe, then they shouldn't also turn around and chide the sites for making that choice.

Well they could just ignore the GDPR, like probably 80+% of the world's websites (of course then someone would complain how dare they ignore EU law...)

It's simply impossible to be aware of all the laws in the world. At some point the simplest and most realistic thing to do is to ignore what does not directly concern you.

From what someone else has commented they are accessible from Norway, so they may already be in breach of the GDPR depending on how they track visitors. Are the Norwegian authorities going after a small-ish organization from Virginia? Nope. They are not even aware that those guys exist and won't bother anyway.

I do agree with you, though, that it is absolutely fair for non-EU websites that don't want to have anything to do with the GDPR to block EU visitors.

Post reply on HN