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

401–410 of 459 posts

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

#401

Post by [deleted] »

tantalor wrote: post #293
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #120

I cannot get to the site (blocked for EU) but the rule in France is two way. The driver must not enforce its priority when there is someone crossing the street at a place they should not. The price is high. A pedestrian can cross anywhere but has priority only on a zebra crossing. They are however expected to use a zebra crossing if there is one less 50 m away. It may cost you 11€ if you do not. The reality is of cou…

> driver must not enforce its priority... pedestrian can cross anywhere but has priority only on a zebra crossing If drivers have priority ("right of way" in USA) but cannot enforce it, then they don't really have it, do they? It's easier to just say pedestrians always have right of way.

[deleted]

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

#402

Post by killtimeatwork »

Jommi wrote: post #394
megablast wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chicago, San Francisco. Even la has a decent bus system.

LA has a decent bus system? Are you serious? Have you ever lived in LA, and lived in a european city? LA has no unified bus system. It has multiple ones and its super confusing. Each bus makes a stop nearly every minute, making every ride impossibly long. Lack of bus lanes make for shitty traffic stuck trips as well.

> Each bus makes a stop nearly every minute, making every ride impossibly long.

It's the same in London. That's why for longer rides you take the tube. Buses are for shorter rider or from getting from/to tube station.

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

#403

Post by jimbob45 »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #141
jimbob45 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right but we have no way of knowing how many walkers were blacks, how many black and white walkers actually jaywalked, and how many walkers of each race got let off on warnings. It’s a nice talking point, I’ll grant you, but it won’t hold up to scrutiny on HN.

>how many black and white walkers actually jaywalked Are you seriously proposing that 98% people of color could be a representative sample of jaywalkers, or are you a bad troll? That pretty clearly shows a bias in the level of policing.

Drawing conclusions with incomplete information is irresponsible, no matter how good the intentions.

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

#404

Post by ck425 »

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?

No. You can use a crosswalk or ignore it as you like. Of course most people use them cause they prefer not to get hit by cars.

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

#405

Post by ck425 »

leetcrew wrote: post #271
ck425 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

> What other pieces of personal property does Western society openly embrace everyone owning but that can be used to murder people? knives would be the obvious answer, though they probably don't cause as much accidental carnage as cars.

That's the point. Cars have an unmatched level of potential damage compared to almost anything short of actual weapons. Insisting that drivers are careful in any areas where pedestrians might be and being strict about that isn't unreasonable.

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

#406

Post by BrandoElFollito »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #344
garmaine wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You may want to hold on with the pitchfork for a moment.

TL;DR If @satellite2 is, like myself, French, we do not have separate words for "murder" and "manslaughter" in the everyday language.

Longer version: we have the verb "tuer" ("to kill") which can be applied to people, flies, bears, time or boredom. It just mean to go from a state of "live/be" to "not live/be".

We then have the noun "homicide". It is never used in the everyday language (but would be in legal proceedings and sometimes on the TV news when they want to qualify the act). Its etymology is "homme" + "occire" ("man" + "old French word for kill"). It means "to kill a man". There is no connotation beside that and you add the adjective "volontaire" or "involontaire" ("intended" or "unintended") to make the English difference between "murder" and "manslaughter". And then plenty of other legal qualifications (premeditation or not etc.)

Again: this is a word you would not use in everyday conversation. Please note that there is no verb derived from "homicide". It is only a noun.

In many cases people will use "murder" to mean "someone was killed somehow", while technically "murder" ("meurtre" in French) is an intended act. But since our "manslaughter" ("homicide volontaire") is too long we use "murder".

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

#407

Post by BrandoElFollito »

tantalor wrote: post #293
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #120

I cannot get to the site (blocked for EU) but the rule in France is two way. The driver must not enforce its priority when there is someone crossing the street at a place they should not. The price is high. A pedestrian can cross anywhere but has priority only on a zebra crossing. They are however expected to use a zebra crossing if there is one less 50 m away. It may cost you 11€ if you do not. The reality is of cou…

> driver must not enforce its priority... pedestrian can cross anywhere but has priority only on a zebra crossing If drivers have priority ("right of way" in USA) but cannot enforce it, then they don't really have it, do they? It's easier to just say pedestrians always have right of way.

See @satellite2 answer above - this is not that simple and is indeed some kind of gray area.

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

#408

Post by BrandoElFollito »

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?

Yes, he meant "manslaughter" - see my comment below the other one of yours.

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

#409

Post by ck425 »

momokoko wrote: post #234
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…

This is because, at least in California and New York, jaywalking is not a crime. It is a civil infraction. This means there is no criminal record or court/jail time. It’s a ticket just like a parking or speeding ticket. I find it hard to believe people believe we should be allowed to just hang out in the street. It’s there for general safety of everyone. Could we adjust the rule to account for situations where no car…

> But obviously we can’t have a rule where people are allowed to just cross busy city streets at will anywhere. It would be terrible for overall mobility in the city as well as dangerous.

That's how many many countries operate and it's actually relatively safe.

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

#410

Post by ck425 »

frickenhamster wrote: post #284
leetcrew wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am definitely not anti-car (I love cars and driving), but I don't agree that jaywalking laws make any kind of sense. as a driver, it's enough to be presumed not at fault for hitting a pedestrian that is behaving erratically. as a pedestrian, it's absurd not to be allowed to cross an empty street when convenient.

So you don't normalize walking where you're not supposed to.

Why shouldn't being able to cross the street be normalized?
Post reply on HN