Live data from Hacker News

Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

vox.com

131–140 of 324 posts

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#131
post #100
post #8

PSA: On January 1, 2023, jaywalking became legal in California with the Freedom to Walk Act, reversing what was once one of the strictest laws against this practice in the country. Now, pedestrians can cross the road at places other than intersections and crosswalks without penalty.

Because of this incident: https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-cops-scrutiny-teens-jay...

Here's the letter of the bill as well:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#132
post #82

Note that like most laws, Jaywalking laws tend to make more sense when you read them. Here's the law in New York: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2015/vat/title-7/artic... 1152. Crossing at other than crosswalks. (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadwa…

Canada specific, but… Diagonal crossing is a thing in Quebec City at certain intersections which stop the traffic flow in every direction. Otherwise I only ever do it when I cannot see any cars which is fairly common at night in rural areas.

The intersection to Pike Place Market is an all way crossing (to your point we're pretty cloae to Canada :) ):

https://maps.app.goo.gl/wG1Eq4E1StVjCSj18?g_st=ic

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#133
post #121

My issue, as a driver, is that more and more pedestrians walk wherever and whenever they want with complete disregard for their environment. I’ve had to hit the brakes pretty hard on several occasions when I had “right of way” (right turn light, for example) and a pedestrian stepped off the curb with their face buried in their phone. I see the fines for jaywalking as a function to encourage safety rather than crimina…

My issue, as a pedestrian, is that more and more drivers are driving with complete disregard for their environment. I've had to jump or run out of the way on several occasions when I had "right of way" (crosswalks or stop signs, for example) and drivers accelerate right through with their face buried in their phone. This problem also exists when cycling on shared bike gutters where oblivious drivers veer out of their…

[flagged]

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#134

My issue, as a driver, is that more and more pedestrians walk wherever and whenever they want with complete disregard for their environment. I’ve had to hit the brakes pretty hard on several occasions when I had “right of way” (right turn light, for example) and a pedestrian stepped off the curb with their face buried in their phone. I see the fines for jaywalking as a function to encourage safety rather than crimina…

The difference is that you’re cocooned in a tonne of steel, hurtling along at speeds which kill pedestrians. The onus is on both parties to be vigilant, but it’s more on you as a driver. As soon as you get over this entitled view, like the road is your own little go-kart track, it’s so much easier to drive safely. I used to hold the same view until I started walking regularly and could understand how much the game is…

> As soon as you get over this entitled view, like the road is your own little go-kart track

This view was not espoused by the OP. You've made it up for some reason.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#135
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed that people who don't drive usually don't have frame of reference of what cars are capable of, and usually don't understand all of the simultaneous requirements that must be fulfilled by drivers. So you get pedestrians who don't understand what the stopping distance of a car is, or pedestrians who don't recognize dangerous situations that they create. In other words, people with driving experience are us…

I've noticed that people who don't walk or bike usually don't have frame of reference of what cars are capable of, and usually don't understand all of the simultaneous requirements that must be fulfilled by pedestrians and cyclists. So you get drivers who don't understand that they need to look both ways even on a one way street, because someone might be using the sidewalk, drivers that don't pay attention to walk si…

I understand the reasoning behind wanting this to be some kind of David v Goliath story, but this is the real world.

Cars don't stop as fast as feet. Everybody is a pedestrian sometimes but not everyone is a driver. You can say accountability belongs to one or the other but one is gonna walk away and one isn't. Personal responsibility should take precedent over right of way.

You cannot regulate or control others, but you can regulate yourself.

I'm fine with cars having the right of way. They pay for the roads with sales tax, excise tax, gas tax, registration fees, inspection fees, insurance that pays for all kinds of things, and the car itself which is a huge investment into the economy. Quite literally it is the drivers who pay for the infrastructure used by everyone on the road. They earned it.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#136

My issue, as a driver, is that more and more pedestrians walk wherever and whenever they want with complete disregard for their environment. I’ve had to hit the brakes pretty hard on several occasions when I had “right of way” (right turn light, for example) and a pedestrian stepped off the curb with their face buried in their phone. I see the fines for jaywalking as a function to encourage safety rather than crimina…

That's the thing. If it weren't for the prioritization of auto traffic, crossing the street at arbitrary places and times would still be "sensible behavior".

Everything you think you know about cities and the role of pedestrians is wrong -- a distortion introduced by auto companies to diminish walking and public transport and encourage automobile purchases. We are currently radically rethinking our cities and imagining a greatly diminished role for cars in them.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#137

Note that like most laws, Jaywalking laws tend to make more sense when you read them. Here's the law in New York: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2015/vat/title-7/artic... 1152. Crossing at other than crosswalks. (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadwa…

Jaywalking shouldn't ever be a criminal offense. (Intentionally obstructing traffic is a separate issue.)

Ticket pedestrians for creating an unsafe environment. It's what we do to drivers when they do the analogous thing.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#138
A technological advance that appears not to threaten freedom often turns out to threaten it very seriously later on. For example, consider motorized transport. A walking man formerly could go where he pleased, go at his own pace without observing any traffic regulations, and was independent of technological support-systems. When motor vehicles were introduced they appeared to increase man’s freedom. They took no freedom away from the walking man, no one had to have an automobile if he didn’t want one, and anyone who did choose to buy an automobile could travel much faster and farther than a walking man. But the introduction of motorized transport soon changed society in such a way as to restrict greatly man’s freedom of locomotion. When automobiles became numerous, it became necessary to regulate their use extensively. In a car, especially in densely populated areas, one cannot just go where one likes at one’s own pace one’s movement is governed by the flow of traffic and by various traffic laws. One is tied down by various obligations: license requirements, driver test, renewing registration, insurance, maintenance required for safety, monthly payments on purchase price. Moreover, the use of motorized transport is no longer optional. Since the introduction of motorized transport the arrangement of our cities has changed in such a way that the majority of people no longer live within walking distance of their place of employment, shopping areas and recreational opportunities, so that they HAVE TO depend on the automobile for transportation. Or else they must use public transportation, in which case they have even less control over their own movement than when driving a car. Even the walker’s freedom is now greatly restricted. In the city he continually has to stop to wait for traffic lights that are designed mainly to serve auto traffic. In the country, motor traffic makes it dangerous and unpleasant to walk along the highway. (Note this important point that we have just illustrated with the case of motorized transport: When a new item of technology is introduced as an option that an individual can accept or not as he chooses, it does not necessarily REMAIN optional. In many cases the new technology changes society in such a way that people eventually find themselves FORCED to use it.)

While technological progress AS A WHOLE continually narrows our sphere of freedom, each new technical advance CONSIDERED BY ITSELF appears to be desirable. Electricity, indoor plumbing, rapid long-distance communications ... how could one argue against any of these things, or against any other of the innumerable technical advances that have made modern society? It would have been absurd to resist the introduction of the telephone, for example. It offered many advantages and no disadvantages. Yet, as we explained in paragraphs 59-76, all these technical advances taken together have created a world in which the average man’s fate is no longer in his own hands or in the hands of his neighbors and friends, but in those of politicians, corporation executives and remote, anonymous technicians and bureaucrats whom he as an individual has no power to influence. [21] The same process will continue in the future. Take genetic engineering, for example. Few people will resist the introduction of a genetic technique that eliminates a hereditary disease. It does no apparent harm and prevents much suffering. Yet a large number of genetic improvements taken together will make the human being into an engineered product rather than a free creation of chance (or of God, or whatever, depending on your religious beliefs).

Another reason why technology is such a powerful social force is that, within the context of a given society, technological progress marches in only one direction; it can never be reversed. Once a technical innovation has been introduced, people usually become dependent on it, so that they can never again do without it, unless it is replaced by some still more advanced innovation. Not only do people become dependent as individuals on a new item of technology, but, even more, the system as a whole becomes dependent on it. (Imagine what would happen to the system today if computers, for example, were eliminated.) Thus the system can move in only one direction, toward greater technologization. Technology repeatedly forces freedom to take a step back, but technology can never take a step back—short of the overthrow of the whole technological system.

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#139

Note that like most laws, Jaywalking laws tend to make more sense when you read them. Here's the law in New York: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2015/vat/title-7/artic... 1152. Crossing at other than crosswalks. (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadwa…

It's important to note that while many states have the fairly common sense exceptions you mention, they also allow municipalities to implement and enforce more aggressive policies that don't have such exceptions. For instance, even somewhere like New York City where jaywalking is wildly common doesn't have the "shall yield right-of-way" language:

     (c)   Restrictions on crossings.
        (1)   No pedestrian shall enter or cross a roadway at any point where signs, fences, barriers, or other devices are erected to prohibit or restrict such crossing or entry.
        (2)   No pedestrian shall cross any roadway at an intersection except within a cross- walk.
        (3)   No pedestrian shall cross a roadway except at a crosswalk on any block in which traffic control signals are in operation at both intersections bordering the block.
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/newyorkcity/latest/NYC...

Re: Automakers invented the crime of jaywalking (2015)

#140

Note that like most laws, Jaywalking laws tend to make more sense when you read them. Here's the law in New York: https://law.justia.com/codes/new-york/2015/vat/title-7/artic... 1152. Crossing at other than crosswalks. (a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadwa…

Jaywalking laws, independent of how they are implemented only make sense if you start from a prior that the roads are specifically for vehicular use snd it’s pedestrians that are making exceptional use of them.

The article is pointing out that belief was a specific policy choice driven at least in part by automakers.

Post reply on HN