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

251–260 of 459 posts

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

#251

Post by teloli »

twblalock wrote: post #203
imglorp wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget.. 4. Auto makers conspired to kill or cripple mass transit. http://www.brooklynrail.net/NationalCityLinesConspiracy.html

There were quite a few other factors that led to the decline of streetcars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... One of the biggest is that people actually like living in suburbs, and they could afford to do so after WWII. The promise of the suburbs is a detached house, with some private outdoor space like a back yard, in a quiet area: essentially what the rich had always preferred and been…

Oh man, am I glad to be European. Walk to the bar, cycle to work, take the tram if it rains. American cities built for cars are just so sad.

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

#252

Post by woodruffw »

asguy wrote: post #226
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. The construction of highways through poor (read: minority) urban areas, causing mass respiratory disease and premature deaths[1]. Isn't this kind of leap? I've lived plenty of expensive places (e.g. downtown San Diego, Boston, Los Angeles) that had free/highways close to expensive property. What is leading you to believe highway construction targets the poor areas, other than those real estate markets are alread…

> Isn't this kind of leap?

No. Here are two specific examples:

1. The Cross Bronx Expressway, which basically created the South Bronx[1]. "The Power Broker" by Robert Caro is one of HN's most frequently recommended books, and covers this subject (as well as other racially-motivated planning projects by Robert Moses) extensively.

2. I-65 and I-165 in Mobile, AL cut directly through the historic "Africatown" neighborhood[2]. Residents regularly complain about both automotive and nearby industrial pollution, encouraged by ease of access by the highway[3].

Most of these effects are more visible on the East Coast rather than the West Coast, since the East's older and denser cities had fewer "paths of least resistance" when building the Interstate Highway System during the midcentury. But it wouldn't particularly surprise me if the areas that are now expensive in the cities that you mentioned were originally cleared for highways under "slum clearance" or similar laws.

Edit: This is anecdotal, but I figured I'd mention it anyways: I grew up in Manhattan, and virtually everybody I grew up with has (or had) asthma. Some of that is to be expected from other pollution sources (in particular, NYC used to burn very dirty heating oil), but I also went to public schools that were directly alongside major state and interstate highways.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_Bronx_Expressway#Urban_d...

[2]: https://www.npr.org/2019/06/19/733996699/alabamas-africatown...

[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/26/africatown-s...

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

#253

Post by RandallBrown »

teloli wrote: post #251
twblalock wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were quite a few other factors that led to the decline of streetcars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... One of the biggest is that people actually like living in suburbs, and they could afford to do so after WWII. The promise of the suburbs is a detached house, with some private outdoor space like a back yard, in a quiet area: essentially what the rich had always preferred and been…

Oh man, am I glad to be European. Walk to the bar, cycle to work, take the tram if it rains. American cities built for cars are just so sad.

I can do that in my American city too.

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

#254

Post by quicklyfrozen »

scatters wrote: post #221
reificator wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right of way or not, you are the operator of the dangerous machine,not the pedestrian. The onus is on you to pay attention to your surroundings. It doesn't matter whose fault it is if you clip a child at 40mph, they're dead. This is disingenuous. Say for instance a person wants to die by being hit by traffic: they can jump out from behind a parked car right as the car passes. So in at least some percentage of cases…

If you're driving along a road with parked cars, you slow to a speed where if someone (say a 4 year old child) jumps out you can stop within your reaction time. Anything else is dangerously reckless.

That's not a realistic goal. Even at 20 MPH, a well timed jump from between parked cars could leave someone closer then your reaction time.

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

#255

Post by pydry »

teloli wrote: post #251
twblalock wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were quite a few other factors that led to the decline of streetcars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... One of the biggest is that people actually like living in suburbs, and they could afford to do so after WWII. The promise of the suburbs is a detached house, with some private outdoor space like a back yard, in a quiet area: essentially what the rich had always preferred and been…

Oh man, am I glad to be European. Walk to the bar, cycle to work, take the tram if it rains. American cities built for cars are just so sad.

Also nice that corporations don't run my government mainly for their own benefit.

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

#256

Post by throw0101a »

dehrmann wrote: post #205
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…

> 2. Allocation of free public space (car parking) to drivers, effectively subsidizing (disproportionately suburban) commuters at the expense of residents. The times I've commuted into a city, I had to pay for parking, usually in a private lot. I suspect it's like this in most big cities, and in smaller cities where people still commute, parking is probably private lots owned by the employer, not street parking. Pict…

> In places with free street parking (or public lots), I suspect the population is sparse enough that the added land cost for parting isn't a big deal, most people have cars, and most people support having parking.

Of course they support it, because it doesn't effect their wallets. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a cost to it:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Cost_of_Free_Parking

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

#257

Post by dijit »

RandallBrown wrote: post #253
teloli wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh man, am I glad to be European. Walk to the bar, cycle to work, take the tram if it rains. American cities built for cars are just so sad.

I can do that in my American city too.

Oh! Which one? I can only think of NYC but that’s really inhospitable to cyclists too. :/

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

#258

Post by throw0101a »

twblalock wrote: post #203
imglorp wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget.. 4. Auto makers conspired to kill or cripple mass transit. http://www.brooklynrail.net/NationalCityLinesConspiracy.html

There were quite a few other factors that led to the decline of streetcars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp... One of the biggest is that people actually like living in suburbs, and they could afford to do so after WWII. The promise of the suburbs is a detached house, with some private outdoor space like a back yard, in a quiet area: essentially what the rich had always preferred and been…

> The promise of the suburbs is a detached house, with some private outdoor space like a back yard, in a quiet area: essentially what the rich had always preferred and been able to afford.

You can do that and still have density. Things were built like that pre-WW2; see street view of this Toronto, Canada neighbourhood:

* https://www.google.com/maps/place/150+Westminster+Ave,+Toron...

Those houses (actually land) are very expensive now, but that's because urban living is now cool again. Up until the late-1990s they were quite affordable because all the Cool Kids wanted to live in the suburbs: downtown was mostly for immigrants post-WW2.

There's a bus line to the west of there (Parkside), a streetcar line to the east (Roncesvalles), and both of those connect to a subway line (Bloor). And one doesn't have to give up their car: it simply becomes optional for day-to-day stuff instead of being a necessity.

There's no reason why post-War suburbs couldn't have been built this way. The above neighbourhood was a suburb of Toronto and folks commuted via streetcar "to the city".

For slightly smaller sized homes, but still with backyards and laneway garages, see the next street over:

* https://www.google.com/maps/place/50+Geoffrey+St,+Toronto,+O...

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

#259

Post by reificator »

maccard wrote: post #207
reificator wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right of way or not, you are the operator of the dangerous machine,not the pedestrian. The onus is on you to pay attention to your surroundings. It doesn't matter whose fault it is if you clip a child at 40mph, they're dead. This is disingenuous. Say for instance a person wants to die by being hit by traffic: they can jump out from behind a parked car right as the car passes. So in at least some percentage of cases…

> So in at least some percentage of cases, there's simply nothing even the most attentive driver could do to avoid hitting someone. Only a sith deals in absolutes. Just because you can't prevent someone who _wants_ to be hit from being hit doesn't mean you shouldn't be completely vigilant. As an example, it's not reasonable to expect an obstruction on highway/motorway traffic, but it _is_ on a 40mph road with crosswa…

> Only a sith deals in absolutes.

So you agree with my position then.

The post I was responding to was the one dealing in absolutes. I was saying that vigilance, while important, is not the only factor.

I want to see drivers be more vigilant. What I don't want is for people to defend a position that I hold, but with an argument that is easy to debunk.

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

#260

Post by reportingsjr »

leetcrew wrote: post #215
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.

there are at least a few commenters here who repeatedly advocate for banning cars altogether in cities. if not "anti-automobile", how would you describe this position?

That almost exclusively refers to largely limiting personal cars, it doesn't include service vehicles, delivery automobiles, etc (so construction vans and trucks, ambulances, etc are still allowed).

Much more info on the car free city center concept at this wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carfree_city

Post reply on HN