Jaywalking decriminalization, 100 years after the auto industry made it a crime • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by arctangos » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 9:26 PM UTC

pdonis wrote: post #169

mulmen wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

This middle ground currently governs most interactions between people in cars and people on bicycles. This fails in practice, as criminally irresponsible drivers are able to speed away from crime scenes while their victims are injured, dead, or otherwise incapable of seeking redress.

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

#182

Post by sonotmyname » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 9:26 PM UTC

woodruffw wrote: post #145

nineplay wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We in the US do an absolutely horrific job of recognizing and compensating for the externalities of our automotive culture. One of the ways we recognize the externalities of our automotive culture is by making jaywalking illegal.

> One of the ways we recognize the externalities of our automotive culture is by making jaywalking illegal. You mean the law in one municipality that hasn't taken effect yet, and that took months of LEO-adjacent protests? We're slowly getting better, to be sure. But I don't think anybody should be content with the rate of progress.

I think you mis-read GPs post...

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

#183

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

ericmcer wrote: post #176

woodruffw wrote: post #100

We in the US do an absolutely horrific job of recognizing and compensating for the externalities of our automotive culture. The criminalization of jaywalking is one major aspect, but also consider: 1. The construction of highways through poor (read: minority) urban areas, causing mass respiratory disease and premature deaths[1]. 2. Allocation of free public space (car parking) to drivers, effectively subsidizing (dis…

Car free cities are super obtainable but seem like a total impossibility. We will never trade safety, health and solitude for convenience.

[deleted]

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

#184

Post by armenarmen » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 9:31 PM UTC

marricks wrote: post #34

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…

Many US cities are designed to be downright hostile to pedestrians, California in particular. Some areas in Orange County have blocks before cross walks, or cross walks only on one side of the street so you had to make the right decision a block ago about which side of the street to be on! Strip malls seemed designed to have people drive the 1k feet between businesses rather than having accessible walking. With city…

I remember being in Kreutzberg in the dead of night with a bunch of other punks and them mohawks and and all waiting for the green man. Blew my mind

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

#185

Post by bluGill » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 9:32 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #146

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. Don't you need to do that anyway? Because dogs, deer, children, drunk people, etc etc.

Having lived in the country, hitting deer at 55pmh (100km/h) is a fact of life. You repair the car and move on. Many will call the sheriff, but that is because if you report it you get a permit to eat the deer (otherwise it is poaching - the sheriff is supposed to make sure you aren't intentionally hitting deer with your car).

If you hit a dog with your car it is the fault of the owner for not taking care of the dog.

I worry about children though, as we all know they are not as smart as they should be.

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

#186

Post by dls2016 » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 9:33 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #82

dls2016 wrote: post #30

Can we do shoplifting next? Make it a civil offense like wage theft?

Please don't post flamebait to HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm being sincere. My research indicates both problems cause roughly $40 billion/year in damage to the economy. It's not my fault that most people posting here don't see the impact of wage theft and/or the impact of tangling shoplifters in the criminal justice system.

Your median wage thief probably steals way more than the median shoplifter.

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

#187

Post by inglor_cz » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 9:36 PM UTC

tom_ wrote: post #126

umvi wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Why can't you take some responsibility for their safety? You're the one in a 200+ bhp murder machine, not them. If somebody can dart out into the path of your car, you should be asking yourself why you let yourself get into that situation.

From a city that has a lot of public transport (Prague): some people will dart in front of fully loaded buses, trams, or even trains at a railway crossing. That is humanity at its finest. (/s)

I would be pissed off if maximum speed of a train (a 20000+ bhp murder machine, by your standard) that I use to commute was lowered to some 10 kph in order to keep those candidates of the Darwin Award alive.

Being weaker (pedestrian) does not absolve you of all guilt if you decide to hazard with your life.

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

#188

Post by ravenstine » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 9:37 PM UTC

maxmorlocke wrote: post #16

ravenstine wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because jaywalking is very frequently used by police to target communities of color. As an example, 90% of the jaywalking citations given in NYC in 2019 were issued to people of color.

So is speeding.

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

#189

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 9:38 PM UTC

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…

You have more power, therefore a greater burden should fall on the pedestrian than you? Hmm.

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

#190

Post by ravenstine » Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 9:42 PM UTC

IshKebab wrote: post #64

ravenstine wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, the argument only applies to "crimes" that are very commonly committed. It isn't a racist law in itself but it allows racism to flourish.

This, I don't get. It's quite common to point out the systemic racism in law enforcement when it comes to many common crimes. Why is it that people in this thread are speaking as if this can only be applied to jaywalking? It comes off as very dishonest. At some point, it made sense to enough people that jaywalking have a penalty that it was written into law, and it wasn't because a bunch of people agreed that it would allow cops to punish more black people. Doesn't mean they were right, but it's hardly different from an intent perspective than any other crime on the books. The only difference between jaywalking and speeding(another common way to be pulled over while black/brown) is that far fewer people consider it reasonable.

Is it just because jaywalking is hardly a crime, thus its only conceivable utility is in discrimination? I'm just trying to understand what you're getting at.