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

341–350 of 459 posts

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

#341

Post by dcolkitt »

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.

Except, the difference is mostly a stereotype that isn't held up by the data. In France, 70% of commuters travel by car and only 3% by cycling.[1]

That's less car-centric than America for sure. But Americans have a misguided notion that all Europeans live in quaint pedestrian-friendly town centers that look like Prague or Copenhagen. Mostly because we tend to spend our European tourism in the dense centers of the capital cities.

[1] https://www.transportenvironment.org/news/increase-paris-cyc...

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

#342

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#343

Post by recursive »

nomel wrote: post #274
CalRobert wrote: post #199

Criminalizing jaywalking wasn't about making it illegal to walk across the street. It was about making it legal to kill people doing so with your car. If you want to kill someone in the US it's de facto legal to do so with your car. Just be sober and say you didn't see them.

As someone that nearly hit someone that walked out from behind a bush, with a chemically fueled disregard for the world, I don't think the rules are so bad. As unpopular as the opinion appears to be here, I don't like the idea of having to dodge humans randomly entering the road. Should we also take down the signals and barriers that prevent cars from crossing train tracks, since they have the similar goal of prevent…

If you want to drive without the possibility of having to dodge humans, you should probably drive on a closed track, or maybe a restricted highway.

The capabilities of trains are a lot different than motor vehicles.

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

#344

Post by throwaway0a5e »

garmaine wrote: post #300
satellite2 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. And typically, the forensics would try to determine if a driver that hit a pedestrian in a situation where it could have been avoided at least tried to brake. If not, the driver would typically be charged for negligence and it would launch an investigation for murder.

> and it would launch an investigation for murder manslaughter, I assume?

People exaggerate things for internet points. In every jurisdiction where intent matters you would be correct.

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

#345

Post by AmpsterMan »

what2build wrote: post #228
dehrmann wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Parking structures are: 1) an eyesore 2) poor use of space in dense urban areas Sure let’s reduce urban housing supply cause suburbanites need to drive into town for a little culture. Bringing the noise, smog, and road rage along! Or build culture out there and bike or walk. Omg. It’s insanely toxic, and the epitome of first world entitlement.

I'd prefer for there to be a more market incentive to build parking garages than a mandate for commercial/offices to have to all have their own parking, or effectively subsidized free street side parking. Think of all the surface area used up by cars parking on the street; pave that over with a sidewalk and allow bars/restaurants to set up shop there. That's what I would like.

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

#346

Post by wlesieutre »

js2 wrote: post #334
asguy wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Here in Raleigh, NC, Wade Ave was paved through Oberlin Village: https://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/article237167884.html Many other examples: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/03/role-of... https://www.dispatch.com/in-depth/lifestyle/2020/12/03/black... https://catalyst.independent.org/2020/04/02/how-the-u-s-gove... https://www.facingsouth.org/2020/06/bitter-history-behind-hi... https://archive.thi…

New Haven’s https://downtowncrossingnewhaven.com/history/

It's that joke about how real estate developments are named things like "Shady Grove" after whatever they destroyed to build it, but taken one step further.

Cut down the trees and name the neighborhood after them, then cut down Oak Street and name a highway after it.

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

#347

Post by throwaway0a5e »

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?

Who's behavior is more abnormal for the place and conditions when the accident happened?

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

#348

Post by recursive »

pavon wrote: post #172
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.

Because if cars are being driven at a speed where they are actually useful, then basic physics dictates that it is not safe to mix cars and pedestrians. The car can only stop so quickly, and you must also factor in that both the pedestrians and drivers are humans and will make mistakes in gauging distance, speed, visibility, and will not always have ideal response times. The legal "right of way" cannot ignore reality…

It's not a law of physics that dictates that you must be allowed to operate cars at a speed that you feel is actually useful.

There are plenty of things that could be useful, yet aren't in the context of civilized society. For instance, shotguns are useful for killing squirrels. That alone doesn't grant someone the right to use them that way at any place or time.

"Wishing" people into crosswalks is also not a practical solution.

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

#349

Post by yw3410 »

pdonis wrote: post #303
ck425 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are still marked crosswalks in the UK, though, correct? (The only part of the UK I've been in is London and that was years ago, but I remember seeing marked crosswalks and people generally keeping to them when crossing and obeying traffic signals.) Does the presumption that the driver is at fault depend on whether the pedestrian is in a crosswalk or not?

There are a few for the busy roads, but there are many, many smaller roads with unmarked crossings. In the countryside this is the norm and pedestrians and hikers walk along the road as well.

We even have a few national trails go straight across motorways without crossings!

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

#350

Post by throwaway0a5e »

underseacables wrote: post #160

It’s very interesting to visit compact cities like San Francisco, DC, and NYY, and see how much people jaywalk without a worry. Having walked across the street outside of a crosswalk an uncountable number of times, I cannot recall ever being stopped or being alone. Seems people can adequately decide the risk. It would be better to put the onerous on safety back on to vehicles, but this new law could be used to justif…

Having lived in several major cities I think that most traffic (pedestrian, car and bike) behaves reasonably and predictably.

Online discussion is dominated by people who are only ever in one of the above groups and wants the law to completely and totally favor them at the expense of the others. I don't think this jaywalking thing is a big deal or that much changes with/without a law.

Post reply on HN