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

161–170 of 459 posts

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

#161

Post by chokeartist »

altdatathrow wrote: post #132
Leherenn wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is jaywalking illegal all the time? Here it's only illegal if there's a crossing less than 50 m away.

> small college town That's the key phrase. Police in small towns of America have nothing better to do than setup ways of levying fines against outsiders so they can afford to upgrade their cruisers to the latest dodge chargers or outfit everyone with DOD hand-me-down weaponry.

Put the beer bong down or I will be forced to open up on you with the Mk19 grenade launcher. I apologize son, but I have no other choice.

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

#162

Post by mulmen »

pdonis wrote: post #142
rwhitman wrote: post #125

This is entirely about the same politics of safety we're seeing play out with the pandemic. If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians. As Americans our priority has been individual convenience, over collective safety of our neighbors. Its shifting slowly, but for the most part this is a battle we're grappling with as a society on multiple fronts right now.

> If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians. There is a middle ground: the law could say that, while you can't get a ticket just for crossing a street outside the marked crosswalks, if you do cross that way and get hit by a car, the presumption is that you were at fault--whereas, if you get hit by a car while you are in the marked crosswalks, the presumption is…

Who is at fault if I am jaywalking but get hit by a car that is speeding?

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

#163

Post by underseacables »

Leherenn wrote: post #124
jawns wrote: post #52

My first year of college, I was cited for jaywalking. I was walking across a barren street in our small college town on my way to class, and there was a town cop standing against a wall of a nearby building waiting for an easy catch. I had fully crossed the street and was walking to a nearby building when I heard someone yell "Hey" behind me. I contemplated not even turning around, because I wanted to get to class on…

Is jaywalking illegal all the time? Here it's only illegal if there's a crossing less than 50 m away.

It’s like interfering with a police investigation, it’s only illegal when the police decide to enforce it and want a reason to stop someone. If it’s a baren small street then I say it’s harassment. If it’s 3rd Avenue on a Tuesday, then maybe it’s for safety sake. The issue is that Jaywalking is applied too unevenly it’s laughable

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

#164

Post by mdpye »

btilly wrote: post #152
caconym_ wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 my own anecdotal experience, the most dangerous way to cross the road is in a marked crosswalk with a signal... When I visited London a couple of years ago I was surprised to see that they set the crosswalk significantly back from the intersection. Meaning that a car turning actually can turn, and stop in front of the crosswalk for pedestrians. Which in turn means that the driver can pay attention to cars, decide…

Did you also notice that there's no such thing as jaywalking in the UK? I had to be told so many times on visiting the US to start to internalise it!

Here, you cross where and when it's safe. Busy roads have crossings, because otherwise you might wait a very long time for it to be safe, but there are no crossings on 99% of streets, because you're allowed to cross them wherever you need to

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

#165

Post by klyrs »

627467 wrote: post #134

"the auto industry made it a crime", I mean, we hear lots of allegations that USA is actually ruled by corporations but was this crime not established as such by elected officials in an elected institution? Jaywalking is a ridiculous "crime", no doubt. But let's not go blame some abstract group (auto industry) for democratic society's failure.

Only, the history of this is well documented. The auto industry consists of auto manufacturers, dealerships, and their lobbyists. Here's a couple of articles that are more specific:

https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797

And, yes. Politicians are complicit in this too.

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

#166

Post by watwut »

umvi wrote: post #102
chrisseaton wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

In Germany, car drivers must always be prepared to brake for pedestrians, including children and elderly people. Children as young as 6-7 walk the streets alone or in packs, so the kid dashing is real possibility. No one is gonna call CPS over it, schools literally recommend first graders to walk to school alone.

Pedestrian must use shortest path through street, but does not have to use crossing - you have to use crossing only if one is available within 40m or so.

The power dynamic does not really plays out. The cars are slow in cities, cross walks are everywhere.

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

#167

Post by watwut »

umvi wrote: post #122
chrisseaton wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All your arguments are about protecting yourself and limiting your liability at the expense of the pedestrian and you just slowing down and taking more care. You even talk in the passive voice about people being struck by your car rather than you striking them with your car. That's a shit attitude.

Why am I being villainized for a) going the speed limit, b) complaining about a legitimate safety issue? I would never intentionally strike a pedestrian in my vehicle, but a situation where a) I am driving the speed limit, b) a pedestrian jaywalking forces me to reflexively brake is not safe . So either the speed limit needs to be lowered, or pedestrians need to behave more safely. I would not need to reflexively bra…

You argue by Germany and in Germany jaywalking the way it exists in USA does not really exist. There are a lot more options for pedestrians to cross the street, the marked crossing is not necessary.

There are ways for pedestrian to get small fine, but generally cars are supposed to be in control and watch for pedestrians.

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

#168

Post by francisofascii »

umvi wrote: post #122
chrisseaton wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All your arguments are about protecting yourself and limiting your liability at the expense of the pedestrian and you just slowing down and taking more care. You even talk in the passive voice about people being struck by your car rather than you striking them with your car. That's a shit attitude.

Why am I being villainized for a) going the speed limit, b) complaining about a legitimate safety issue? I would never intentionally strike a pedestrian in my vehicle, but a situation where a) I am driving the speed limit, b) a pedestrian jaywalking forces me to reflexively brake is not safe . So either the speed limit needs to be lowered, or pedestrians need to behave more safely. I would not need to reflexively bra…

In the effort to find common ground, maybe the villains are not the specific drivers, but the planners or collective culture who decided to built highway like roads next to shopping plazas. "The speed limit needs to be lowered" is a good compromise.

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

#169

Post by pdonis »

mulmen wrote: post #162
pdonis wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If jaywalking was legal, the sacrifice is that we'd have to drive slower to watch for pedestrians. There is a middle ground: the law could say that, while you can't get a ticket just for crossing a street outside the marked crosswalks, if you do cross that way and get hit by a car, the presumption is that you were at fault--whereas, if you get hit by a car while you are in the marked crosswalks, the presumption is…

Who is at fault if I am jaywalking but get hit by a car that is speeding?

In a situation like that, where there is a presumption of fault on both sides, fault would probably end up being split 50-50. Which in practice usually means each party ends up paying their own costs. A large disparity in costs (as would probably be the case in the example you give) might change that, but it would probably end up having to be decided in court.

(Note that what I am describing would be the case under current law wherever jaywalking is illegal, not just under the hypothetical law I described.)

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

#170

Post by bluecalm »

ajuc wrote: post #109
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…

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…

While I agree about slowing down traffic I don't agree it's a solved problem in Europe. More and more countries and cities are on board but we are far away from the target in both regulations and road culture.
Post reply on HN