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

241–250 of 459 posts

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

#241

Post by ck425 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #223

Just want to point out how special interests can actually pretty insidiously change your viewpoint by making you think "that's the way things have always been". It was relatively recently that I discovered that jaywalking, as a crime, was a distinctly American phenomenon, when in an HN discussion someone mentioned that British folk think the crime of jaywalking is insane (in the UK you can cross pretty much wherever…

When an American friend explained it to me at uni I honestly thought they were trying to trick. It's just such an absurd concept, like how does anyone walk anywhere? Then I realised they don't.

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

#242

Post by jbnorth »

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…

Regarding your third point, I've nothing but distain for bikers in my community. They put up signs to be treated like cars (since there generally are very poor shoulders in this area) but then will plow through stop signs and will not signal turns or anything. Nearly ran one over in a fire truck because they just ran right through the stop sign.

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

#243

Post by carapace »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #79
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…

There is a noticeable anti-automobile crowd here on HN. Personally, anti-jaywalking laws just make sense and there doesn't need to be sinister motivations from the auto-industry to explain why we have them.

I don't know about "sinister", I think everyone involved thought they were doing the right thing, but it's historical fact that US jaywalking laws are the result of a deliberate concerted effort by the auto-industry and law-makers. They weren't shy about it. There were announcements and photo-ops and stuff.

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

#244

Post by ck425 »

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…

In the UK we have a good setup where is a pedestrian walks out it's on the driver to be careful and try stop, therefore the presumption is normally that the driver (or larger vehicle generally so lorry>car>cyclist>pedestrian) is at fault in most cases. It sounds chaotic but in practicality it's balanced by the fact most people don't want to be hit by a car and we teach kids from a young age how to cross roads.

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

#245

Post by njharman »

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.

Let’s not blame abstract group/process “democratic society” when it’s clear that a concrete commercial organization, the auto industry, had profit motive to advertise and lobby for favorable PR and legislation.

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

#246

Post by carapace »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #217

Lots of vitriol and stories. The bottom line is, pedestrians and cars don't belong on the same piece of road. The difference in speeds is too great to be safe.

FWIW I think a sane (ground) transportation system would have at least three or even four inter-connected subsystems:

1. Pedestrians

2. Bikes

3a. Cars

3b. Buses

3c. Trucks (shipping)

4. Trains

(And we're starting to get motorized bikes and scooters which might be their own category, at least by speed/power/safety measures.)

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

#247

Post by rightbyte »

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #118
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…

1) I will be curious to see if the BEV revolution happens there will be a huge statistical change in cancer rates in the US. 3) as a cyclist who transitions from commuting by bike in the summer to car in the winter, it is astonishing how my psychology is impacted by driving in the two modes. I am so much more impatient and angry from driving. There is just a nasty psychological feedback cycle of the obvious pure pote…

Sadly the tires them self seems to be a big problem. I wonder how big share of air polution they are responsible of.

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

#248

Post by ck425 »

inglor_cz wrote: post #187
tom_ wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 (pedes…

But a train is on specific tracks where a pedestrian has little need to be. That's not the case with cars, which intermingle heavily with pedestrian areas. In those cases I think it's perfectly fair to restrict their speed for safety and to put the onus on the driver to prioritise safety. The alternative is we either ban cars from pedestrian areas completely or we just accept the deaths or heavy inconvenience of pedestrians (which seems to be the current US model).

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

#249

Post by kibwen »

avianlyric wrote: post #237
bigbubba wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody drives in those cities; there is too much traffic.

Somebody has to be driving, otherwise the traffic would just be a bunch of empty cars. But I agree the majority of locals don’t drive.

The person you're responding to was paraphrasing a famous comedic observation. To quote Yogi Berra: "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

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

#250

Post by ck425 »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #149
reportingsjr wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are not anti-automobile people on here. There are people who are sick of cars being pushed as the /only/ way for things to be done. Almost every person you see advocating for better safety for pedestrians, people biking, etc understands that cars are necessary for some things. It just doesn't need to be forced for literally every small thing.

I get what you're saying. And for what it's worth I do like the idea of making city centers more walkable and pedestrian friendly. But based on some comments in this discussion there are absolutely anti-automobile people here and they are vocal. I just responded to someone calling a car a "murder machine".

Not that I disagree there's an anti car segment here (I'm personally very anti car) but a car can be (can not necessarily is) an effective murder machine. What other pieces of personal property does Western society openly embrace everyone owning but that can be used to murder people? I'm not saying that's the intent but when people call them murder machine the point they're raising (hyperbolically) is that cars and dangerous pieces of machinery and that has to be taken into account more when we consider urban design.
Post reply on HN